I’d honestly be so hyped if the game was through all eras but ancient and modern(to aoe3) at the same time, like romans fighting british empire rifles and such, while all civs have their own ages to upgrade, like greeks having from tool age to stone age, while the british empire goes to industrial age,japan going to the imperial age like in aoe3,indians going to their imperial age in aoe2, stuff like that
Single Era
Hi Folks,
I vote for multiple eras. Selectable (3 to 4 different eras). Maybe a game mode spanning all eras.
BR
I don’t think age will work on a multi era setting.
I would love to play AOE I in a remake sincerely. With no cards, and then introducing a lot of innovations like Natural Catastrophies introducing a “survival” attitude by the player (similar to the one some of us experience when one player destroys another’s city center and that poor guy tries to rebuild somewhere else).
I would introducie enhanced multuplayer with enhanced synchingABLE games thanks to switchable avatar people can switch between control of civ in game, play against multiple AI or multiple Humans, and a MATCh could last forever without ever ending really until one really gets “superior” to the other team.
It would be lasting forever because we allow people to join the game live. (Avatar Switching, multiplayer enhancement).
Focus on a Age IV From 1800 to 2017. ( I would not like to go in that age though). Remake a AOE game chapter.
Or focus on a huge remake from Pre history to 1800 maybe.
Sincerely I don’t really like the idea of Making another Civilization or hundred of similar games.
So focus on one.
Since ESO Made an horrible job especially with expansions and ESO dynamics, ranks, investing in people hybris, hacking etc, I suggest to invest in REMAKING AOE 3 it will be names AOE IV.
Or anyway focus on 1800\1900 before the wars. That would leave suspence, connect with other (future and already Relic games - COH) otherwise you would provoke cannibalization of Sega Games…
Focus on 1750 to 1850. It would be a remake of AOE III practically but much better non US centric, non Euro centric but planetary vision.
It won’t be easy to make a nice game.
**** In this topic you start to see how much people are not prepared to speak about history, evolution, philosophy, media **** read more people, read more…
And people mentioning in the “american way” the Word “ERA” make me laugh a lot…
Like everything could be dealt with as it was a big pastiche (typical murican way…) NO OFFENSE.
Just consider how complex is hystory. In AOE 3 there were 2 phases of history at least, the Colonial and the imperial. Plus the aging upgrade speaks clearly. They were FIVE, don’t need to mention em.
Aoe 3 had 5 so called “Eras”.
History is diverse and happens differently in everyplace, it’s like asking Texans to remove death penalty: they would never reach that open mind as instead it would be possible to change that in California.
Taboo touching, sorry!
PLEASE people: DO USE THE VOTE BUTTON to vote other people topics, this can help a lot ordering and exchanging opinions and fostering the FORUM process to produce value. thanks.
Multiple Eras, I would like the feeling that I am actually advancing. However I would like to see 5 sub age upgrades per Era, that way it feels like it has been ages if you know what I am trying to say. This would make it so that you kind of cannot rush to gunpowder units and the early game units have enough time to do their damage. Also it would give a nice feeling everytime you age up. Age of Empires is about the ages, or am I wrong about that?
For example, There would be a prehistory era. There would be 5 time consuming upgrades that cost more resources than the previous. Stone age, Copper age, Bronze Age, Iron Age and classical age. Then the upgrade to the middle ages becomes available (examples: Early middle age, middle age, dark age etc.) Than the renaissance era. Next comes the modern age as the endgame age. Just because someone is at a higher age than you does not mean you are going to lose necessarily, perhaps you spent more resources on troops and the other guy is putting all his resources in aging up. This is why I encourage age of empires to expand throughout multiple eras, there is just so much more room for content. It would still feel like an age game that way except there would be an slow and gradual progression to an advanced society. I bet you most 1v1 games won’t ever make it to the modern ages anyways since there is so much resources to collect for it and you will be constantly fighting.
Imagine the possibilities of being able to limit or choose what ages you want to start in and end in, this could justify buying a new age game. We got the technology now, don’t we? I mean at least more people in this forum would be happy and buy into this game. It makes so much more sense since the trailer pretty much sums up what it is going to be. You saw how diverse the era votes were.
@“W Tomahawk W” said:
I would love to play AOE I in a remake sincerely. With no cards, and then introducing a lot of innovations like Natural Catastrophies introducing a “survival” attitude by the player (similar to the one some of us experience when one player destroys another’s city center and that poor guy tries to rebuild somewhere else).
hello, do not agree to focus part of the game in survival mode. In this way there is a risk of getting too far away from the roots of AoE franchises. Very simple: the guy who fails to contain the attack, ends the match, or fails to settle elsewhere, saving some locals, has the normal ability to resume building with the resources that have remained. It’s a simple yet straightforward concept. No survival mode or even something that is approaching to be a survival. There is more to focus on.
Can’t say if Relic is planning to finish what Ensemble started, but they did intend IV to be a more modern warefare theme by the looks of this page from the back of the Art of Empires book they released with the collector’s edition of AOE III. The space theme was obviously a semi-secret nod at Halo Wars (unreleased at the time).
That said… Relic already makes the best (in my opinion) modern warfare RTS of all time, Company of Heroes. If the idea is to make a modern warfare RTS with no melee, then I’d rather see them make COH 3. It makes more sense all around. Because of that, I doubt that’s what they’d do with Age of Empires IV.
The idea of multiple eras is cool but it’s already done by Rise of Nations and Civilization. I really hope AOE doesn’t go that route, because–again–there’s already a title that does it very well already without changing what it is. Although, with the right tweaks to the mechanics, it might be cool to go from ancient Rome to the Colonial era. The Gunpowder age would be a real game breaker though if it weren’t handled right.
Yeah, I’m leaning firmly towards a classic single era Age of Empires game. Maybe they can place it somewhere between the American Civil War and WWI. They still used bayonets in WWI, so there’s some melee element still. I wonder what kind of “walls” we’d be able to build? … or perhaps another area of the world had some interesting history between the Colonial Era and the Industrial Revolution.
Not sure if Relic plans to pick up where Ensemble left off, but according to this page from the back of the Art of Empires Book, released with the Collector’s Edition of Age of Empires 3, it looks like the plan was to have IV based in a more modern warfare era. (V is a nod to Halo Wars, unreleased at the time.)
That said, Relic already makes one of the best modern warfare RTS games of all time. If they were going to go that route, it might make more sense to just make Company of Heroes 3. Similarly, I think multiple eras is a cool concept, but–again–there are already games that do it well (and without changing what they are): Rise of Nations, Civilization, etc…
I think there’s room for AOE IV to be based somewhere between the American Civil War and WWI. Soldiers were still using bayonets into WWII, so there could still be some element of melee combat in the mid to late game.
[*My previous post threw up an error and disappeared, so apologies if this ends up being a double post.]
That magazine ad has been debunked. It was never to be taken literally. That hasn’t stopped folks from reminding us about it every week or so.
It doesn’t mean AoE4 won’t be in the 20th Century. It just means if it is, it’s not because of that ad or because it was a decision that was made back then.
@“Andy P” said:
That magazine ad has been debunked. It was never to be taken literally. That hasn’t stopped folks from reminding us about it every week or so.It doesn’t mean AoE4 won’t be in the 20th Century. It just means if it is, it’s not because of that ad or because it was a decision that was made back then.
Sorry, first time I’ve thought about it since I saw in the book. Didn’t realize posting was such an epidemic.
No, you are good. It’s like an urban legend. It has legs. You didn’t do anything wrong.
Single era, middle ages. Castles! Knights! Cool bases! Big armies! Tactics!
Keep mechanics same and simple but do more with the world. More immersive.
Single era is probably more in keeping with AoE aesthetics and styling. I like the Idea of Industrial/WW I era, but I’m not so sure how well that fits in with the previous AoE games.
A hard decision indeed.
I always preferred the AoE franchise over Civilisation’s for the reason that it was Single Era - and I’m not a massive fan of Rise of Nations at all.
No need for logical reasons here, just my 2 pence/cents/whatever - I just want the Era focus to go back to the ancient, and I want the game to focus that… 'Cos I like it.
Even if it goes all full-on sci-fi, I’ll probably be playing it anyway lol.
As my second choice; I’ve yet to be truly entertained by any world war RTS… I’m ready to be coloured impressed. Show me what you got!
Firstly Empire Earth (even it’s 2006 release) has a very poorest graphics as compared to Rise of Nations (2003). Regarding AoE future I insisted AoE team to add at least WW1 and WW2 ages. Right now there is a great market for WW1 and WW2 rts out there. AoE having such a smooth brighter constructive graphics. They will be sure able to beat the rest World War rts out there if the AoE able to market it’s brand effectively.
Consider that Relic are known for making WW2 and futuristic RTS titles.
It would be wild if Relic agreed to make 20th Century AoE RTS games to compete against their own 20th Century RTS games.
Is money. There isn’t important if compete or not.
Let’s think outside the box for a minute. What about a non-historical era? Completely fictive and custom civilisations? You come up with your own empire, select a couple of bonuses with 10 bonus points, and some bonus cost more points than others… You select your type of architecture, you select your tech tree with a handful of limits of this and that!!! 
Also add a fifth resource rather than the four usual one. A type that would only be useful in the last age! Something that cannot be obtained via trading.
1 Like