Where are the DLCs?
Where are the campaigns for the other civs?
Where is the PvE content?
Where are the co-op campaigns?
Where is the TD mode?
Where are the custom campaigns?
Where are the mods that aren't just pop cap increase?
Where are the skins?
Where are the blood, gore and death animations?
Where are the new art of war challenges?
Where is the rewind button in replays?
I’m shocked that the game has been out this long without them trying to sell us any additional content, makes that first CoH3 update look even more embarrassing by comparison.
aoe 4 is trash accept it
It's fun tho, just need more singleplayer content
I just hope AoE4 DLC add everything I mentioned in the op
It's not fun ebcuase the lack of formation, copy paste of aoe 2 funsamentals liek civ design and the bugs when aoe 4 released, the poor balance. Only an idiot would play and think this game is part of the franchise. stop coping anon
What are you talking about? AoE4 has formations, civs that are actually unique in play style and visually, bugs got fixed and the balance is good.
They made the game to appeal to AoE2 fans but AoE2gays don't play other games, they criticised AoE3 for being different while also criticising AoE4 for being the same, you can't win with AoE2gays.
Should I give a try to AOE3DE?
I remember playing it back there, but I didn't like it for some reason. Can't explain.
It's an excellent RTS game but a bit different than AoE2, for example you don't need to build economic building such as mills and lumber camps to collect recourses and you train units in groups instead of individually, you should definitely play it if you like the era
If you didn't like it, then I don't think it can be helped. If you love AoE2 more than life itself, don't even try, you'll be annoyed that 3 plays different in virtually every aspect. If you didn't like 2, you might want to give it a go, especially if you liked AoM because the two share many similarities. In any case, the DE comes with a lot of additions and reworks and is a ton of fun to play.
>AoE4 has formations, civs that are actually unique in play style and visually
This cope needs to die already. AoE2 civs are unique. You just need to play the game to understand that, and the sort of people drawn to AoE4 don't have the patience for that.
Even 3gays can be tricked into eating the same core design AoE2 has, but 4gays shot themselves in the foot because they thought 3gays were different.
>AoE2 civs are unique.
From a gameplay perspective? Not really, a bonus here and a bouns there one or two unique units and that's it. While AoE4 civs have unique mechanics that completely change the way you play with each civ and way more unique units
I know that might sound stupid, but I like how the civs are visually distinct and have unique models for generic units
>From a gameplay perspective? Not really, a bonus here and a bouns there one or two unique units and that's it.
See, this is why I said "You just need to play the game to understand that, and the sort of people drawn to AoE4 don't have the patience for that".
I'll give a few examples here:
>Tatars
Increased upper limit for pre-farm food, meaning you can reasonably manage a M@A-archer with fletching and delay moving out to deer, then beat skirms whenever your archers set foot on a slope because +50% damage is one of the greatest bonuses in the game. Your horse-cav all gets an additional +1 PA, meaning you're more of an anti-archer civ than the Viets, and for the first half of CA, you get Ethiopian xbows. Top-tier trebs with 19 range and the hill bonus make contesting Tatars incredibly dangerous, and flaming camels provide a perfect game-winning unit to send against massed cavalry, allowing Tatars to counter every unit type offensively. Good cost distribution on keshiks to support multiple roles in the army, and Tatars have the siege techs needed to easily control space from hills.
Notoriously bad infantry that still has the damage to serve as a costly, hard-hitting auxiliary in case the enemy goes all-in on halbs while you're playing cav archer.
The lack of Paladins/Arbs means you have to work to close out a game, but you have flexible enough food in the early game to play Dark Age however you like.
cont'd.
Idk I just play Saracens
Do you play Saracens as a Paladin civ? Would you play Turks as a Halb-siege civ? Persians as a massed-champ civ?
They screwed the pooch with the civs they included at launch. No one cares about durka durka civs in some remote corner of the earth, people want civs that are core to the medieval experience.
Also microsoft is just generally fricking up with timelines, if i play a game that is gunpowder centric like AOE3, why will I care that much about AOE4's gameplay? I get to the same place through unique routes, just like AOE3 except i can use gunpowder units far sooner in AOE3 with far more civs to enjoy. Also for AOE4 they are going the Civilization route where graphics/assets become so sophisticated and realistic that it becomes a b***h to create maps with alot of strategic depth reducing the campaign potential.
Large volume of campaigns and civs is how they could have gotten the playerbase energized from the start but nothing about what they made facilitated that. Also they made Civs so distinct that, like AOE3, PvP is all but guaranteed to be riddled with exploits.
>No one cares about durka durka civs in some remote corner of the earth, people want civs that are core to the medieval experience.
This is just you. I love Suvarna, and many, many players are bored of the "BLAST, BUILD, BATTLE! FORGE YOUR DESTINY IN AGE OF CHAMPIONS: CONQUERORS OF FEUDAL BLADE: LEGENDARY EDITION" shit.
Sounds like you need to go play those cancerous microtransaction games. Malians should be a fringe addition to the game and the Ottomans being core to the medieval experience is like saying that having modern Iron Man show up at the end of some Marvel WW2 movie is core and critical to the movie experience, if you really need the durka durka, they could have chosen the sultanate of Rum. This is what happens when you frick up timelines and go into AOE3 territory, civs stop being distinct because technology replaces defining attributes of specific ages of history.
>Malians should be a fringe addition to the game and the Ottomans being core to the medieval experience is like
I said Survana. I like India and China. They're a central part of the middle ages if you're in the Old World.
>if you really need the durka durka, they could have chosen the sultanate of Rum.
Each civ represents its predecessors and successors.
Are you just going to mope around now?
Have fun crying with the next balance change.
Is the implication here that the next patch is going to nerf my favorite civ?
The implication is that there will be at least one change you disagree with. If you want to get your autism on and display your knowledge of the game, then do it, but don't be so arrogant when people disagree with you.
>The implication is that there will be at least one change you disagree with.
Oh no, the horror.
>If you want to get your autism on and display your knowledge of the game, then do it, but don't be so arrogant when people disagree with you.
No. I'm not going to treat you like a precious child. You want to come on, be wrong, and get ass-blasted whenever someone notices. Just don't bother. Get it right.
>I'm not going to treat you like a precious child.
What the frick are you talking about? You're probably confusing me with someone else, I've seen you accusing other people of not playing the game many times.
You've got your head so far up your own ass, it's incredible. Only your interpretation is correct. I admire the autism though, your arguments are well thought out, and you obviously know the game very well. But that doesn't give you license to completely discard other people's opinions and thoughts, and accuse them of not playing the game.
>Only your interpretation is correct.
If the opposing arguments couldn't be summed up as, "My interpretations are valid too", I'd question this, but if your only defense for your argument is that your ego gives it value, it's invalid.
>But that doesn't give you license to completely discard other people's opinions and thoughts
I've always had that right.
>and accuse them of not playing the game.
They don't play the game. I just said it aloud.
Ottomans do count as a medieval civ tho
>words words words words
You are vastly overestimating the appeal of hyper optimised build order homosexualry. Solving a spreadsheet for a 15s faster scout rush or to eke out 2 more generic units in feudal is not really "civ variety". Most players outside of torunamentgays can't even consistently execute perfect plays where such miniscule advantages matter so the game plays out the same regardless.
>ou are vastly overestimating the appeal of hyper optimised build order homosexualry. Solving a spreadsheet for a 15s faster scout rush or to eke out 2 more generic units in feudal is not really "civ variety".
Isn't this just you being a moron? And that's only covering Feudal. Of course it's not the entire civ.
Don't even bother talking to that guy. He loves the smell of his own farts.
>Khmer
Only civ in the game that can exclusively put units on food and house-building and still hit feudal.
Can delay or completely omit buildings at will for infinite crossups. Out-of-position villagers can set up houses and farms to stall for the army, and this lets them convert a 100w tax on deer mills to 180w for 3 farms instead, with the added benefit of being able to hide any and all endangered vills in nearby houses while your army comes to kill whatever's attacking.
Only civ that can use the military to cut down trees in castle age, and it has the fastest tools for cutting a line in the game.
UU and battle elephants hard-punish all forms of archer play, and infantry take on a role as pure pike-counters to extend the lifespan of elephants, which can (due to their 10% movespeed bonus) fight archer masses.
Scorps match archer range from the start of castle, outranging them late in the game while letting them further add to their damage, fricking up foot compositions.
Only civ to get FU HCA without Thumb Ring, making their performance scale with distance. Hand cannoneers covering FU Elite Battle Elephants are also a unique combo for this civ only, and it comes with the benefit of both FU Hussars and a deathball spammable UU whose counters both lose to Hussars.
Easily the trickiest civ in the game, which can't be locked down to one option or another despite its fricked-up tech tree.
Are you the guy who wants to staple elephant archers onto the Burmese?
have a nice day. I mean it.
>Bengalis
NO KNIGHTS. NO KNIGHTS, MOM.
Good eco bonus giving you a scaling +48res/min lead over your opponent from the moment you hit feudal, doubling once you hit castle, but you can't use the bonus to age up faster like Malays. Can't use stables for midgame play either unless your enemy overcommitted to skirms, meaning you're playing Barracks, archery range, and siege workshop.
Elephants units out the ass, but all of them are traps before you click to imperial, and your generic options all fall off there, necessitating a switch. Rathas try to be cav archers and knights, but fail at being both. Excellent university and respectable siege workshop give you options despite the civ's other failures, and the naval healing bonus gives you the best snowball potential in the game. Monks counter entire compositions due to your archer focus giving you a free smush, with a benefit in Orthodoxy and your eco bonus. Can't mix in elephants as infantry like malays can, but they last longer in the lategame, and you have the single most oppressive Champ-EBE push in the game due to monks and armored eles enabling you to forcefully take land (prod. buildings) without vills interfering.
These are differences you appreciate only when you've played the game.
>You just need to play the game to understand that
Are you the guy who constantly accuses other people of not playing aoe2 because you disagree with them?
Playing black in chess is a radically different game from playing white. You just need to study the game to understand that. However the sort of people drawn to AOE2 doesn't have the patience to delve deep enough to understand that.
Now after all these years, playing chess with my nephew, chess is chess. It doesn't matter if i'm black and white. They're both the same.
Playing aoe4, from day 1 every civ was a radically different experience from another. That made it fun and interesting. A learning curve doesn't automatically make your game better. Don't try to intellectualise it, just have fun or shut up.
>Playing black in chess is a radically different game from playing white. You just need to study the game to understand that. However the sort of people drawn to AOE2 doesn't have the patience to delve deep enough to understand that.
Chess is a poor game. Perfect information, no diplomacy.
>A learning curve doesn't automatically make your game better.
Knowledge checks deepen gameplay.
>Don't try to intellectualise it
/vst/.
>balance is good.
u mean uu being trash, no sp content bcuz muh muh e sport. formation were eliminated on release.
other wise it was a big mistake to try to appeal aoe 2gays. they dont play anything beside aoe 2
They should have reused the AOE3 mechanics for a space colony game called AOE5, which would make constant callbacks ingame to AOE4 which would not exist.
Maybe DLC that costs $50 and is in development for close to a year and gets massive amounts of hype. I think the failure of the launch is telling AOE's studio that the money just isn't there.
Perhaps modding community could revive it but it needs to be a mod that gets people to buy the game.
>I think the failure of the launch is telling AOE's studio that the money just isn't there.
It's telling them that Age 5 needs to get Age 2 right.
Hah, honestly if they wanted to create more hype for AOE4, they could have started be leaving AOE2 incomplete. Sucks to say but leaving a player base wanting off of a previous title is a great way to advertise the next one, but no, the studio needed to perfect AOE2. I'm not necessarily complaining but there is likely genuine value to be had for AOE2 by meaningfully updating the engine, which we won't be getting since the studio's obsessed with perfecting AOE2(now with AOE1)
AoE5 should be a reboot starting in the stone age again.
Meanwhile AoE2 is still getting DLC
Face it, they don't give a frick about AoE4 because it's just not that good.
It did get a bunch of free content updates with new civs, maps, units and stuff.
>Almost 2 years
>actually 1,5 years
Yeah, I have been so conditioned to DLC that the fact there is none is almost bizarre. Why would you keep the game alive for so long and not have more content. I suppose they gave out the 2 civs for goodwill since the initial release was questionable but the game is in an okay place now so where is an actual expansion. What about SP content? That has always been a big part of AoE and lelic games were known for campaigns so it wouldn't be new for them either. Did they paint themselves into a corner with the format and the documentaries are now too expansive to make? I actually kinda liked the narrated thing, but I wouldn't care if they dropped it either.
Some people speculate that aoe4 was always meant to be a multiplayer game, and the campaigns were thus an afterthought.
The campaigns must have been made on a fairly old version of the game though. The campaign civ units and techs are very different compared to MP on release or even the closed beta. Though the fact that they never bothered to update it probably shows how much they actually cared. I can sort of understand choosing to not change the campaign unit stats in post-release patches since that can frick with design/difficulty or even break it in extreme cases, but campaign usually plays a role of showing off the units. AoE2 manages to continuously revamp campaigns to represent new civs that were placeholders before so there's that too.
2 years already? I'm still hoping for it to go under 20 euros to give it another try after playing the beta. I wonder how much profit it made since it was well received but it clearly doesn't have the following that AoE2 has
Hard so say, the game was in development hell for a while and seems to have pretty high production values all things considered. It still sold well and was expensive so it probably made money back, but I wouldn't be that surprised if MS was willing to tank some losses because they use it to promote the pass and that complicates estimating how much AoE4 specifically made them.
Holy zoom. Not every game is GaaS that cranks out inane updates just for the hell of it, asking for more money each time.
>AoE4players: "hey, could we have some single player DLCs like AoE2&3 and AoM?
>4chinners: "holy buzzwords!"
i never played aoe2 but played the shit out of aoe3 and loved it. is aoe4 worth buying?
you will probably like it since you won't be comparing it to AoE2, campaign is fun but a bit lacking.
Tried it twice during free weekends and thought it was at least all right, but I'm probably in the minority saying that I liked the narration and the documentaries. It borrows a few minor things from AoE3, too.
What I didn't like is how it overheated my laptop, even on the lowest settings. This isn't suitable for crappy hardware unlike many other recent strategy games which surely affects its popularity more than any other flaws.
I actually like the documentary thing too. The campaigns are good overall, but one pretty big drawback is that it's based on some old balance version so moving from campaign to MP/skirmish can be confusing with some unit having vastly different stats.
AoE4 is a decent game all things considered. It had a bit of a rough launch but is in a good place now. The main areas of contention are really the AoE2 purists. I feel like the game is taking more inspiration from AoE3 and even AoM than the 2-onlies realise. So if you don't have the baggage of playing that game for 20 years and assuming it's peculiarities are universal to AoE or even RTS in general you will probably enjoy 4 on it's own merits.
So compared to AoE3:
>Campaign
There is no campaign to speak of.
>Skirmish
There are no home cities to modify your civ or just grind stuff when bored.
There are no AI personalities.
AI doesn't talk to you, nor respond to your taunts
>Music
There's lots of it, but it's designed as unintrusive background noise, rather than the strong melodies of older AoE games.
>Civilisation variety
If we're talking civs, there are 9 AoE3-vanilla civs (same units and buildings with minor gimmicks) and 1 AoE3-expansion civ (unique unit roster).
>Physics
Removed from the game, everything has pre-baked animations.
>Gameplay
No trade posts to contend.
No neutral units to recruit.
No scouts and treasures to collect.
>Progression
All campaigns are unlocked after you finish the tutorial missions.
You gain these ugly portraits which would look out of place in a student project, much less of an AAA game.
>Sound design
The cannon shots you can hear from far away are replaced with trebuchet and cannon shots. Units chatter even without clicking on them. Really the only thing in this whole game that has been crafted with some love.
Probably. It's not a bad game or anything, but the design of it can be a bit odd.
First off, nu-Relic has never been able to design a decent campaign, except for maybe DoW2. And the campaigns in AoE4 suck, frankly. There's a campaign fo Normans (English), French, Mongols, and Rus. The problem is that every single level is just a 1v1 cage match with nothing interesting as far as scripting. You're never contending with multiple factions or anything like that. Also every campaign has you pretty much exclusively facing a single enemy faction. So all the Norman missions are vs French. All the French missions are vs English. All the Mongol missions are vs Chinese. And all the Rus missions are vs Mongols. Balance is also all over the place with units having stats that are completely different to their multiplayer counterparts.
Multiplayer is a different beast. It's good, but you're stuck fighting people who do nothing but abuse the current meta. I checked out when 90% of matches ended in a 4 minute tower rush.
Mongols also fight against Rus and HRE and you play Chinese in a mission from perspective of a turncoat general, but that really is the most varied campaign. Not that makes it much better but I think most of English campaign is civil wars so it's eng vs eng. I'm not sure if fighting the french is actually part of it at any point.
But yeah, the game doesn't showcase half the civs at all and the matchups in campaigns are pretty limited.
>Where are the blood, gore and death animations?
This please, doesn't have to be edgy but
>character dies and 5 seconds after PLOP! ... disappear
So lame
Age II didn't have this problem. That game is old old but had so much attention to detail