Will we one day get "Age of Empires II DE: Classic"?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

It worked for World of Warcraft; why wouldn’t it work here? I think it should definitely be pre-Rise of the Rajas, because that’s when things were getting more weird. Villagers using houses as bunkers instead of as walls, and most of all those silly maps where boats and land units can traverse equally. Personally, I’d prefer The Forgotten, because the African civs look real weird with the special unit being the only black-skinned one, and the Feitora is a bit extra.

Keep the Quality of Life updates, but remove the modern regional units and stuff like Saracens priest and Celtic castle heal aura. Maybe review the balance adjustments, and if they make sense and don’t introduce a new mechanic, keep them.

We already got Return of Rome, Chronicles, and hopefully soon the Three Kingdoms, so what’s one more alternative game mode? And this one might actually have a multiplayer base.

2

Including Forgotten Empires but not other HD DLC seems kinda arbitrary.

Also which state of the civs should it be? Maya with Obsidian Arrows?
Generally the balance from before DE?

It would be basically a build in Datamod, right? But would there be enough people that play it online? RoR is pretty dead.
Chronicles civs can be played against the other civs in private lobbies.

Of course you can probably answer most of the questions according to your own preferences but everyone has different preferences. So a compromise would have to be found.

2 Likes
3

Between UTs, balance changes, new units… it would be a nightmare to pick and choose, while the old balance would be very questionable. Notably infantry was chronically underpowered to the point the militia line was ignored except when it came to trashbusting, as lacking speed and range greatly penalised it with scale (the game was designed for 75 max, while everyone started playing at 200 max making it the standard).

But if you want to try you can indeed try making a datamod.

1 Like
4

I don’t know exactly what I want, but no weird stuff. Age of Empires 4 for example, was designed differently. Day one, the Mongols could move all of their buildings. But Age of Empires 2 had a similar design philosophy to Warcraft 1 and 2. It was a mirror match, except for only a small number of easy to understand tweaks. In Warcraft, all the difference in stats came from the magic.

And that philosophy got lost along the way, I think. You can pretty much look at every civilization at release and get a pretty good guess when it has been released.
Shu, Wei, Wu - Heroes, therefore three Kingdoms
Armenians, Georgians - Mule Carts and Fortified Churches, therefore Mountain Royals
Hindustanis, Poles, Romans - Aura effects, therefore Dawn of the Dukes
Bulgarians, Burgundians - Unit transformations, therefore The Last Khans

Bengalis, Bohemians, Gurjaras, Jurchens, Malay Sicilians all have some weird mechanics, and the Khitan Pasture seems gratuitous

I can’t think of anything for Burmese, Vietnamese, Cumans, Lithuanians, Tatars and Dravidians

Trying to think of weird mechanics amongst classic civs I can only come up with the Viking Berserks regeneration and Hunnic Atheism. Did the Goths have the population cap altering back then?

5

Most of AoC civs are pretty crazy compared to AoK civs and even many later civs.

Aztecs and Maya are still some of the most unique civs gameplay wise.
Huns also play more unique then most civs and are probably still one of the most, if not the most controversial civ in the game.

The Spanish do stretch the timeline in the other direction and Missionaries were the only Monetary unique unit for decades.

Koreans were quickly put together to appeal to the Korean audience very shortly before release.

But that all happened 25 years ago so everyone is used to that by now. People are now mad when a civ doesn’t have the Knight line while there have been civs without a stable in the game for 25 years.

2 Likes
6

People are now mad when a civ doesn’t have the Knight line while there have been civs without a stable in the game for 25 years.

I think people find the change from Knight-line to Hei Guang unnecessary and gratuitous, like I also think the Pasture is. That is about change just for change’s sake, not that the change itself upends the game.

I agree that the Huns got more than just the atheism tech, but are the Mesoamericans really that weird? It’s just like Camels and Elephants, a regional change to the unit rooster. Spanish stretch the timeline, but a Monk alternative isn’t that bad.

7

At this rate we’ll need it sadly

8

Age of Empires doesn’t have the same reasons to impliment a classic mode vs World of Warcraft.

Classic age of empires would still be an RTS game. You might have fewer unique elements of various factions and unique units, but it’s still an RTS game at it’s core. The only difference would be the balance.

World of Warcraft fundamentally changed how the game works between classic (things like 40 man raids, poor loot distribution requiring teamwork to overcome the potential drama, spell down ranking, lack of various professions and shortcuts. The importance of world buffs. Most importantly the removal of group finder which removed the communication in a multiplayer game. Quests requiring groups to complete vs being able to solo multiple mobs. Modern WoW is designed as a single player game that you can choose to play with other people. Classic WoW is a game where you functionally cannot play it single player.

Plus the added factor that there is simply content that is no longer accesable in modern wow (the map was radically overhauled in cataclysm)

Theres a big difference in how Classic wow plays vs modern wow, there is not a big difference in how age of empires 2 plays then compared to how it plays now. (and id argue the few key differences like more unique techs, more civs, more maps, tweaks to balance have made the game better, not different)

You could maybe make an arguement that the classic civs being overhauled means there is content no longer available, but I don’t think theres the same level of demand to play the “less good OG persia”

2 Likes
9

We are now in Age of Empires II – Indefinite Edition. :slightly_smiling_face:

Despite that, I would say most of the net balance changes over the years had been good and would be a mistake to abandon. For example, see how much work has been done to bring Goths to the right spot at the moment.

10

I guess one of the reasons is it would be hard to agree on what counts as “classic”. I’d expect something marketed as “AoE2 Classic” to be based on either the original AoK or The Conquerors 1.0, and at most include nothing later than The Conquerors 1.0c patch (i.e. nothing not made made by Ensemble Studios).

If you want it to stop at the point just before “things were getting weird”, you’d need to agree what counts as weird. Maybe I’m forgetting something, but I think the game logic established in AoK wasn’t broken until DE/The Last Khans – and then, mostly by the unique units’ abilities and Cuman Mercenaries. I see Feitorias as an extension of the relic gold generation mechanic, so they don’t seem weird to me.

For the last four: Cuman Mercenaries, armour-ignoring attacks, gold-generating attacks, and charge attacks. Vietnamese have fire lancers with a charge attack now too.

1 Like
11

I mean, back in the day you were paying ten more resources to get a slightly diferent champion. I dont think the Hei Guang were needed but they arent problematic

The pasture is also not just for “changes sake”

12

I say the game did fundamentally change from a symmetrical RTS to an asymmetrical RTS. Long before, selecting random was no big deal, however now it’s: Gurjaras put their Herdables inside the mill, Poles want their farms only around a Folwark, Khmer farmers don’t use drop-off points and their houses are bunkers, Sicilians make Donjons (with their special military unit), Armenians and Georgians have their mule carts, and Khitans have pastures.

Warcraft is an early example of a symmetrical RTS, Command and Conquer of an asymmetrical. In Warcraft, the unit stats were mirrored, but the spells made all the difference (WC2 also had one Archer Line upgrade). If looking at the game, you start thinking of the factions as identical, and later you notice the differences. In C&C, GDI and NOD had different units, but later you realize the Minigunner and harvesters, as well as lots of buildings, were reused for both.

Symmetrical and Asymmetrical is a gradient, and a game can slowly shift from one place to the other. I’m actually not informed at all on the social dynamics of World of Warcraft, but I guess it must have started with some kind of help in finding like-minded players for cooperation, and slowly the automation takes over, with everyone just asking the computer to be ushered into a group.

There can’t be a clear line where symmetrical but with some strategic advantages for all sides ends and asymmetric but with some reused assets begins. And clearly those who know the game inside and out might still think of the differences as small in number and super easy to remember, but for me, it’s starting to lean more towards being an asymmetrical RTS.

It’s like the game actually wants to be a modern RTS, it no longer feels old school to me.

13

If the Last Khans broke the game logic, then the previous one, Rise of the Rajas, stretched it to its limits. The amphibious terrain was never meant to actually be used for anything other than the coastline, just a “cheat” to help with loading/unloading transports. It checks out for me that in that time period, the developers became discontent with the game as it is and started to transform it rather than just broaden and perfect it.

14

Age of Empires 2 (even as early as Age of Kings) has always bridged the gap between symmetrical and asymmetrical. We’ve always had unique units, unique civ attributes, unique variations of the tech tree, some civs having access to something slightly more unique (vikings with the only unique boat). Goths have always wanted to swarm infantry, Byzantines have always been adaptable but defenseive, Mongols have always had a stronger hunt, so on so forth. Those elements are asymmetrical, but the overwhelming mechanics of the game are still symmetrical, the polish, armenians, gergians, Sicilians all still use pikemen to counter cavalry, they use knights for raiding.

I’d agree that the weight of the game has increased as the number of civs has increased, and there has been an ever so slight shift to slightly more uniqueness (namely unique techs, a few regional units, and the occasional extra unique unit/building). But overwhelmingly Id say that AoE 2 still is a symmetrical RTS and that apsect, plus its more intuitive unit counters, has typically kept it more open and approchable compared to modern RTS games. At the end of the day, pikemen from faction A work much the same as pikemen from faction Z.

Most RTS games haven’t done pure symmetry since the Warcraft 1 days where the factions were carbon copy reskins of each other because asymmetrical for better or worse, tends to just be more fun because it presents different challanges and puzzles for the player to get into.

but not to digress into which is better, we are still miles away from something like Starcrafts extremely distinct factions or even Northgards “mostly the same but with some glaringly large exceptions”. I’m not saying to dismiss the argument, but rather I think the closer you get to that level of diviation the closer you get to a call for some form of “classic”. But it’s also (as pointed out by TommoChocolate) subjective as to what is that turning point. WoW classic had this very occurance happen when they reintroduced cata (which is typically seen as the starting point of modern wow) and a large number of people bailed, which is why there is now “classic classic” because thats the high end demand, but some people stayed on because they don’t consider that the “tipping” point. (albeit the the new 3 kingdoms is certainly pushing some peoples buttons)

I’m actually not informed at all on the social dynamics of World of Warcraft, but I guess it must have started with some kind of help in finding like-minded players for cooperation, and slowly the automation takes over, with everyone just asking the computer to be ushered into a group.

Pretty much nailed it. In the Classic era, Content requires that you find a group and work together. In retail you can do that (and the people doing the hardest level of content do) but questing content has been revamped so that it can all be done solo (or with automatically formed groups) and raiding content can simply be auto que’d which no communication nessisary. One is a “you are a cog in a machine” and the other is “you are the hero of the story”. It also creates a better social fabric where toxic behavior is regulated by the playerbase. Theres a lot of reasons the lack of automation forces different behavior and gameplay which is why they are distinct.

Also from a non “vibe” mentality. The actual map in game was radically overhauled in cataclysm (the 3rd expo), you litterally cannot access the content of original wow in many cases. This would be like the devs not overhaling the celts, but deleting them (and the william wallace campaign) from the game. It’s just gone, you can’t play it anymore even if you want to. Thats the other big appeal with classic is content that is litterally unavailable.

If the devs, for some inexplicable reason, deleted older factions in that fashion, and removed campaigns and provided no way to access them (like mods being disallowed for some bizarre reason) then I think you’ed see a bigger call for that kind of reboot.

TL:DR I feel for you that the weight of the game has grown, but I don’t see a call for a “classic” varient outside of the existing HD anytime soon.

15

I’m not sure what you mean by that – non-coastline amphibious terrain (i.e.shallows) was in AoK and AoE1. If you’re talking about buildable amphibious terrain, then I see that as following the original game logic – it just combined two existing features (buildable terrain and amphibious terrain) into one new terrain type. To me, saying that this stretched the game logic is like saying that tarkans stretched the game logic because previously we had cavalry units, and units with an attack bonus against buildings, but hadn’t combined the two.

Personally I think, pre-DE, the biggest departures from the original game logic were Anarchy (castle unique unit trainable outside a castle, and now in two different buildings), Condottieri (unique unit trainable by allies), non-castle unique units not requiring a castle, war galley upgrades affecting three different units, and the Burmese/Vietnamese map reveal bonuses. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone complain about any of those as being too weird.

Of course, you’re welcome to disagree, and I’m not trying to change your mind. My point is really that different people have different ideas about which features stretch or break the game logic, which features should be considered weird, and consequently when the game lost its “classic” feel.

This is sort of a non-issue if your proposal is an unofficial mod – mod makers can do whatever they like, and choose whichever point they like as the cut-off. I believe there is already a mod that restores the original AoK balance and removes all expansion civs, for example. But if a classic mode was introduced as an official feature, I don’t see any “canonical” way to pick a cut-off point.

16

My point was less arguing about the details but showing why it’s hard to find an universal answer to what a AoE2 classic should be.

You personally want Forgotten Empires.
Many others would want AoC or AoK.

WoW has similar issues so they now have multiple servers running multiple different Expansions but the AoE2 player base is too small to be fractured like that.

I don’t remember the details but WoW Classic was basically just old WoW including all graphics with little to no modern additions.

You want DE graphics, QoL features and also balance but not “gimmicky” mechanics?
The problem is that everyone has a different definition of what gimmicky is.
Should Persians lose their new UU? It’s not gimmicky at all.
Should the unique castles be removed?
Should the architecture changes be reverted?
Should the wonder changes be reverted?
How about the Chinese and Korean rework?
Mongols should lose their Steppe Lancer?

But if you undo all those changes you don’t have modern balance anymore since those changes aren’t just cosmetic.
Mongols without Steppe Lancer will play very different.

17

I’m not contesting that WoW had a stronger case, and the part with the playerbase wasn’t something I even thought about. Now that I do, it does seem like a bad idea, since the game should have a viable playerbase at both ends of the ELO spectrum. Being low ELO myself, I really shouldn’t want that.

But I’ll still want to make my case that the game changed:

A criticism I read a lot was: “If the 3K Chinese get heroes, why not everyone else?” And I think that applies to a lot of modern mechanics. Why does only the Liao Dao cause bleed? Why do Armenians and Georgians use their churches and Khmer their houses to seek shelter? Is there a historical reason why the Serjeant can build his Donjon? Every single Konnik survives his horses’ death, but not a single other unit has ever done so.

Thinking about it like that can explain why I feel like I could sort them chronologically just by looking at the civs at their release state, if that part of information were wiped from my memory. If the Bulgarians were a part of the original design, would their Konnnik have that ability? If the Khitans were, would the Liao Dao cause bleed? In the William Wallace tutorial 6, the epilogue says, “With the tree relics locked away safely in Scottish churches, men murmur that we are blessed by the heavens.”, yet only the Lithuanians fight better because of that.

Whenever there is a unique mechanic seen nowhere else, but logically either everyone should have it or no one, that’s a modern civ! The only old civ that would confuse me would be the Vikings with their regeneration (is there some historical reason?). A new mechanic that would surprisingly pass my test is the Gurajas ability to garrison herdables (holy cows, so it makes sense for them and them alone to treat herdables like relics).

But look at the civs like that, and it becomes apparent that the devs just come up with (steal from other games in the series) new mechanical ideas and then design their new civs around them.

True, but it’s moving in the wrong (in my opinion) direction, and some kind of walkback would be appreciated. The best thing they could do, would be to ask if a mechanically unique feature can really justify its existence, and if not, replace it with something generic.

The best thing the game could do, would be to reset itself, by slimming down some of the excessive mechanics, and maybe even making some others universal. A unique mechanic fundamentally shouldn’t be there because the devs came up with it while working on that DLC, but only because it fits that culture more than any other.

If the game can’t rejuvenate itself by curating away some of its feature bloat, it’s like an MMORPG with an item shop. It might be set in Al Capone’s Chicago, but five years in, everyone will drive a Humvee and wear a Spacesuit. And at that point, you can only look for a new game to start the cycle anew.

1 Like