What happened?
The last update was a camera fix and a color chooser, something that is incredibly easy and quick to add.
That's basically all we got for ""season"" 2
Where are the new civs? Where are the new maps? Where is the content?
I honestly think this game has massive potential but they just don't seem to really work on it. This should be the renaissance of RTS, please fricking work on the game you lazy bastards!
>Where are the new civs? Where are the new maps? Where is the content?
In AoE 2
Is the HRE structure bonus worth playing around yet?
Byzantines and Turks are coming soon according to data miners
Frickin better be
I had a feeling from day 1 they'd be saving Byzantines & Turks for DLC, like how Ensemble saved Rome for the expansion in AoE I.
Those two empires are frickhuge; you can't have a game based around the Middle Ages without 'em.
Turks should have a system where they don't build landmarks of their own but can steal landmarks from other players to age up
That sound terrible unless the thing just moves after it's stolen, which would also be stupid.
other anon is making a joke about Turks stealing the Hagia Sophia you buffoon.
Well I don't know much about their history, so my mistake I guess? I knew he was referencing something specific but I didn't know what. It sounded genuine from my perspective given my lack of knowledge of Turks.
sorry for sounding like a dick
It's fine.
Wholesome.
average aoeIV player interaction
good
Well they do have 1 more map, a remake from an AoE 2 map granted, but a map. That being said I hope we get a new civ soon
I'm looking at the patch notes and it looks like they nerfed China again. What the hell are the devs even doing? They constantly buff strong civs and nerf weak ones.
Isn't it AoE tradition that China is always this quirky civ that's ridiculously difficult to play as?
Not really becuase I think that's just something 3 started, it isn't really tradition.
Their unusual start in 2 is a considerable complication and a vulnerability, tho.
nah theyre considerably hard to play in II, especially in the beginning of the game, but III take it to astronomical level with their package unit training
>Where are the new civs?
New civs is really not what they have to focus on right now.
With the new patch, what more does AOE4 need to be considered 'finished'? Can I finally start playing?
its in a very good spot, i'd definitely say its finally "released"
>What happened?
Deytooker
I wonder if Microsoft had something to do with the state of the game at release, seems to me like they wanted big names for october, november and dicember and rushed Halo, AoE and Forza, too much of a coincidence all 3 where a mess at launch.
The biggest problem with Age of Empires 4 is the Chinese.
I don't mean the civilization. I mean Chinese players. Why do they enter our matchmaking and then refuse to communicate?
They're shy.
they don't speak English
>no age cap
>no pop limit setting
garbage videogame
how do i wean myself off the mindet of "always make more villagers" when I should really be saving food to get to feudal. I swear I'm always 2 minutes behind my opponent
Get a build order.
Pick a number of villagers per resource. Personally I have 10 villagers for each resource type and then about 6-8 for building stuff and as a backup in case resource gathering villagers get killed.
With your sheep, berries and huntable animals you have enough food to always make more villagersand click up to feudal without having to save food. Sounds to me like you're just putting to many villagers on other resources.
You should always have a vil in queue, adjust your build order
It was a flop. They made singleplayer a fricking history lesson and tried their best to focus on multiplayer but failed.
I mean look at AoE 3, it got many story DLCs and multiplayer maps plus other features. AoE 4 is a joke.
They should have made it take place during the industrial era all the way up to modern/near future era. Instead they made AoE2:DE:2
This is a horrible idea.
>it's much better they rehashed the same game
It had more potential as a second AoE2 than as some sort of industrial-age warfare simulator, yeah.
>Durr the best they could do is a rerelease of a 20 year old game
You're both absurdly wrong and moronic. There's also no reason they couldn't make different factions have different play mechanics in a modern-ish setting.
You couldn't even hope for them to make "different" factions. It'd just be British, French, Germans, and all of the other crumbs in the area.
What are you smoking?
>British
>French
>German
>American
>Russian
>Japanese
>Ottoman
>Chinese
>Australian
>Canadian
>Austrian
>Italian
>muh crumbs
AoE2 has lots of lesser regional empires or short-lived empires that they shoehorned in for gameplay. Many of which spanned different time periods and never interacted with each other. Do you think the Mongols had a Castle Age? Or that the Sicilians had a massive continent and ocean-spanning empire? Or that the Goths and Mayans ever squared off against each other in Arabia?
>Australian
>American
>British
>Canadian
>French
These are literally the exact same civilization, and I'm not even joking.
>Germans and Austrians
Also redundant.
You have seven civilizations there. Find more, then come back to me.
lmao you're fricking moronic. You listed French and British as separate yourself. Also, none of those are anymore the exact same than all the pajeet or mesoamerican civs. They're all different civs with different histories and cultures.
>You listed French and British as separate yourself
I listed them as separate factions that'd be put in the game. They wouldn't be separate civs and haven't ever been.
>Also, none of those are anymore the exact same than all the pajeet or mesoamerican civs.
Most of the Indian nations are distinct, and there's very little connection between the Mayan city-states, and Aztec empire, and the Incan empire. I'm not even sure if any were aware of the existence of the others.
>I listed them as separate factions that'd be put in the game. They wouldn't be separate civs and haven't ever been.
Fricking destroyed so now you're backtracking.
>bunch of bullshit pulled out of your ass with no reason
Anon, you really ought to know when to take your licks. You only make yourself look like more of a dumbass.
You just listed a bunch of factions that would just be 1:1 copy pastes of each other. Good job.
Wrong. Each one could very easily have different unique techs, unique units, and different civ bonuses just like any other aoe2 civ that allows them to play differently.
You're not even the guy who I was originally talking to, how are you the one getting the most butthurt about this out of all people?
No, most people wouldn't deny that Americans, Canadians, Australians, and Brits are all very distinctive from each other. Sharing a common ancestry means as little as it does for other ethnic groups with shared ancestry.
I'm not butthurt, I just find it funny how you so desperately use this inane ad hominem. You're obviously very immature or insecure if you think you can use that as an argument.
Seethe b***h.
I've never met a single non-Anglo who used any of those interchangeably. And even if you have some anecdote where they did, that's no different than Joe Bumpkin being unable to tell the difference between various arab or pajeet ethnicities.
You're also confusing those people getting statehood for them becoming independent cultures and nations. But even if we were to take your wrong understanding of things, a single century was enough for them to become distinct.
It's even been long enough that they've begun developing vocabularies that aren't mutually intelligible despite all speaking English.
>But even if we were to take your wrong understanding of things, a single century was enough for them to become distinct.
It truly isn't.
If there even needs to be an argument about whether or not a third of your civ roster is the exact same civ, you've probably chosen a bad roster.
>I disagree and because I disagree that means I'm right
Now you're really grasping at straws.
no u
I can't imagine a calm person calling out someone because he reacted immediately while you waited 2 hours. That's the dumbest ad hominem ever. You wouldn't do that if you were confident, or smart. But it's okay man, you didn't know about Ganker X. There's no shame in admitting that. You thought he was refreshing constantly, but he wasn't. And even if he was, that's not an argument.
The one who is seething is obviously you.
>No, most people wouldn't deny that Americans, Canadians, Australians, and Brits are all very distinctive from each other.
Mhm. Tell me you've never set foot outside the Anglosphere. They're interchangeable.
>Sharing a common ancestry
Literally only a single century separating them, and not even that since one of them has always been a world hegemon for as long as they've existed.
Yeah, what you wanted would have not only made every single faction play the exact same, but they also would have all looked the exact same. If anything it should have just been another fantasy or science fiction spin off or a reboot in ancient times. Pulling this series into the contemporary age is a terrible idea.
You have so little imagination inside of you. Pathetic.
No, some people just realize that throwing a game focused on history into the homogenous modern age would be a bad idea.
I want a job at Micro$oft now. You can just sit there, add two lines of code per day and receive competitive salary until they do another mass firing to boost yearly numbers.
Why is it so fricking soulless?
The bland artstyle and user interface don't help it. And it's clearly just trying to be another "AOE II" which doesn't do it any favors in regards to trying to set up its own "personality" as far as the developer's intentions are concerned.
Design by committee, engineering by devs who've just been castrated by a catastrophic failure caused by making changes autistic fanbase didn't like... making a sequel so long in the making it could almost get married with an even more autistic fanbase than 40k nerds.
It was the perfect shitstorm of making the game as bland as humanly possible while still being allowed to put a pricetag on it.
Sometimes I think throwaway sequels are a thing. You know can't compete with your previous great titles, especially after a long gap which is only going to hype up the expectations, so instead of casting pearls before swine you release a turd.
Another sequel made after that, this time with some effort put into it, would be an improvement by comparison and send a message that devs 'took the criticism seriously and learned their lesson'.
If you want to call it, go ahead. I say they're the same people.
>bunch of bullshit pulled out of your ass with no reason
Anon, it's basic American history. Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas had almost nothing to do with each other.
I never said that they had anything to do with each other. In fact, my argument was that calling anglo civs all the same is as absurd as calling mesoamerican civs all the same.
Considering that you're now repeating my argument back to me, leads me to believe that you're either drunk posting or not at all aware of what you're trying to say.
>my argument was that calling anglo civs all the same is as absurd as calling mesoamerican civs all the same.
There's a very clear genetic, cultural, and linguistic link present in just the Anglo civs that doesn't exist within mesoamerican civs. Moreover, they all come from the same empire and use similar technology. If you want to play different factions within the same civ, I'd recommend bannerlord.
Basic American history 102 is when you learn mesoamerican tribes didn't just appear out of the ether, anon. You'll get there one day.
>Basic American history 102 is when you learn mesoamerican tribes didn't just appear out of the ether, anon.
That's obvious. What's apparently not is the fact that the British empire existed, and Britain openly claimed Canada, America, and Australia as its colonies.
It's clearly not obvious to you. Why don't you run along and find out how they got here and then we can talk.
>It's clearly not obvious to you.
I'm the one who pointed out the fact of the British Empire's existence. Now you go on and tell me why we need four English-speaking Brit factions.
What are you talking about? There's one british faction and then the canadians, americans, and australians. Are you saying anytime an empire breaks up all of the people in its former boundaries remain unchanged for all eternity? What kind of schizo rambling are you going on about now?
Also, I walked away for 2 hours and you immediately respond when I come back. You're obsessed, anon. Touch grass.
>There's one british faction and then the canadians, americans, and australians.
They're all British.
>Are you saying anytime an empire breaks up all of the people in its former boundaries remain unchanged for all eternity?
No. Alexander's empire was comprised of many different groups. The British settler colonies were, by design, homogeneous.
>Also, I walked away for 2 hours and you immediately respond when I come back. You're obsessed, anon.
I left to play AoE2 and go over an old Ted-Ed puzzle. Saw the post when I came back and responded. Didn't mind the time.
They aren't all British. You saying so doesn't make it true. Peoples also evolve over time themselves both culturally and genetically.
>Didn't mind the time.
Come on, anon, you were hitting refresh for the last two hours waiting for me to respond which is why you replied a minute after me. No need to bullshit anymore than you all ready are.
If you're reading anything other than banter into this, that's your own projections.
IT WAS JUST BANTER MATE, I WASN'T SERIOUS
>you were hitting refresh for the last two hours waiting for me to respond
And now you do it again. We automatically get a visual cue on our tabs when we get a (You), without needing to refresh. You know the difference between these three, right? I think you even get them if you don't use Ganker X. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>They aren't all British.
They very clearly are.
>You saying so doesn't make it true
I don't think most people would deny this fact.
>Peoples also evolve over time themselves both culturally and genetically.
A single century in an isolated plain really isn't all that much.
>Come on, anon, you were hitting refresh for the last two hours waiting for me to respond which is why you replied a minute after me.
I use Ganker X, so it just tells me when the post comes. The fact that the Mayans player lost to a trush, early skirms, and rams has nothing to do with that.
The point is not necessarily if all those Anglos are technically the same civ or not. I think the point he's making is that it would be very boring to have 4 or 5 civs which are so similar.
>Also, I walked away for 2 hours and you immediately respond when I come back. You're obsessed, anon. Touch grass.
Chill out man. You're clearly grasping at straws if you think this is a reasonable thing to say.
aoe4 isnt bad but it doesnt really do anything interesting with the rts formula. its just a fine rts.
games been abandoned and left on a frickin skeleton crew. It's a shame too since its my favourite aoe game but it could really do with tightening up and more queality of life features. I'm always baffled by what changes they are making which most of them make no sense at all. I'm guessing the game is a whole big spaghetti mess to change anything at this point.
this game is so superfluos. I was really hyped for it, but the grafic style is so repelling. Long shadows that make everything look like it's december. Weird camera position. Choppy 3d grafic. Wtf?? AoE2 is super cozy and makes me want to dive in the game just for the grafic's sake. AoE4 stripped it down to the strategy aspect, I could as well play a board game.
At least people got it by now. Viper and Hera are back and often say how much they hate the game.
Viewer count on twitch right now: AoE2 3000+, AoE4 500+
Can someone please make a mod for a bigger minimap?
The first AOE4 DLC/expansion should add Aztecs, as is AOE tradition.
The first AoE4 dlc will add African nations, because that's the new AoE tradition.
How could that possibly be tradition if no game has ever done that? The Aztec DLCs go back to AOE2 and AOE3.
Thanks, you too.
Not him, but there were no "Aztec DLC" in 2. There was a civ pack which they were also a part of (which also included the Spanish, Koreans, Mayans and the Huns). And in 3 there was a Native American Civ pack which obviously didn't just include Aztecs.
How autistic are you?
zero brain activity detected
That anon is obviously talking about the first DLC for AoEIII:DE, and going out of his way to make a big deal out of it.
Aztecgays need to frick off.
I dont play Germans but I know how to counter them
That being said, why are they the only players I can find in ranked? My last 5 matches have all been versus HRE, then an English who rushed me with longbows, and then 2 more HRE before that. Are prelates that good?
I played the Age of Empires games for the campaign.
I know the English campaign is one big tutorial but I'm at the 2nd to last mission and so far it was really shit.
Are the other campaigns better or should I just drop it?
>Are the other campaigns better or should I just drop it?
IIRC the only campaign that was even half-interesting was the Mongol one. But that's according to the people who have played (and liked) the game. I didn't see anything even worth a pirate there.