Is age of empires 4 any good? I played 2 and when I was younger, but I was shit at both and didn't know what I was doing. Which one should I go play???
Is age of empires 4 any good?
Is age of empires 4 any good? I played 2 and when I was younger, but I was shit at both and didn't know what I was doing. Which one should I go play???
*2 and 3
FRICK I made a typo. I might as well kill myself now
Play all of 2
If you finish that and you want something different, play 3
Forget 4
aoe 4 sux.
Its's good. Plenty of variety in civs and much quicker pace than Aoe2.
Also love how the music changes with each civ and with each age up.
Some downsides are that the scenarios are pretty meh compared to the other games, and the solo AI could use some work; but overall the online scene is pretty active and growing.
Two new civs have been announced recently for the next dlc - Japan and Byzantines.
>Which one should I go play???
If you wanted an order of the games slowly improving with each, then:
AoE1<AoE2<AoE4<AoE3<AoM (<AoEO)
AoE1 is b***h-basic and isn't really playable today, DUNE 2/WC1 tier
AoE2 gets the interface sorted out, is just a solid old RTS, C&C1/WC2 tier
AoE4 adds some details and personality to AoE2, but carries on with all of its flaws, Red Alert 1 tier
AoE3 adds a fun campaign, meta projection, AI personalities, but it also does some steps backwards, Tiberian Sun tier
AoM also adds a real campaign, but a great one, factions are distinct and fun to play, music is bangers, responses memorable, Starcraft tier
AoEO finally is a mixed bag, very YMMV, you might find a straight upgrade of AoM in every way, but could also be put off by the quest-oriented SP experience or artstyle, Red Alert 3/Starcraft 2 tier
That's for the real games. The Definitive Editions are just an orgy of every single game mentioned above. They randomly mix the various faction designs, SP experience, top it off with modern graphics, etc. They're a schizophrenic experience that, at least IMO, works best if you've played the originals, found your favorite and now just want more of game X, more UI, more factions, more of random shit. Kind of like a really popular and massive modpack.
aoe4<<<<<<<<<aoe1<<<<aoe2<aoe3<aom/aoeo
ftfy
atrocious art style
All of the original Age of Empires series games are worth playing.
/vst/ is full of aoe2de grognard shills that crap on Age of Empires 4 but if you were to play one aoe game then Age of Empires 4 would be the best. It's the latest game so it's going to have the best graphics, support, and active playerbase. It has a good selection of civs, music, campaigns. Gameplay wise it's the smoothest and most balanced. It's not tedious like the other games and is most gameplay-focused. Easy to get into and very streamlined without being basic. Very underrated on /vst/ for some reason.
AoE1 isn't really worth playing except as a reminder of how much better 2 is
antiquity>middle ages
It's the best one of the series but all the moronic manchildren that use this website can't let go of their 23 year old game due to the sunk cost fallacy and muh nostalgia. If it wasn't for people's weird infatuation with 2 I really think 4 would be considered the best RTS in the last decade. I will die on this hill because I fricking love the game.
t. Rajesh and I was paid 1 rupee for this post
I felt the campaigns in 4 weren't great, and I don't like the history channel direction they took. Maybe time and expansions will change things
I liked the campaigns and I liked that I learned stuff and I think most of the hate comes from add zoomers
>AoE4
>Good music
lol
lmao, even
4 has some absolute bangers you massive fricking moron
?si=COV-6LhWNjadRXxA
?si=uCfrz-UMAYAU9es-
What compels ""people"" to shit on AoE4 so much? Fear of having to learn a new build order?
It's literally as simple as "old good new bad". I loved 2 dearly but 4 offers much more diversity in gameplay because it requires significantly less build order autism to have fun with.
Are you joking? 4 has way more build order autism than 2. In 2 you can learn a basic fast castle and be fine with all the civs. 4 basically forces you to hyper specialize in one civ since they all have wildly different troop compositions available in Dark and Feudal ages.
If it's as simple as old good new bad then why isn't 1 more beloved than 2?
it was in a pretty bad state at release, missing a lot of basic features, buggy as shit which affected balance
much better state now though but I guess the first impression is what most people will continue to have (well first impresison, took like a year to get into a good state and after fixing bugs they had many rounds of balance updates with some pretty moronic metas, but after balance stuff, adding new mechanics to civs, 2 new civs added for free, mod support, basic features added its pretty good now I guess)
While the game did deserve criticism, I think some people just love to hate stuff. You can see how they root for the worst to happen, how they cherry pick the flaws and make a big deal out of them, how delighted they are that a game is a flop because it didn't sell a trillion copies. Maybe that's how they cope with inability to enjoy stuff or having no time to play new games anymore? Also, vocal minorities are the ones who complain while the rest just play and stay quiet.
people don't love to hate.
alternatively it's that people think hating the thing that is threatening the previous status quo is a way to show love for the things they like.
they aren't taught to move on or to detach from things that pleases them
>Very underrated on /vst/ for some reason.
Because it's a mediocre game that never really outshone AoE2
You know how some games feel better than what they objectively should be when you look at their different parts? For me, AoE IV is the opposite. Practically, there’s nothing completely bad about it and it’s coold how they try to diversify the factions in it, but because it takes place in the same timeframe as AoE II, you can’t avoid comparisons to it. And as it is, AoE II is just so much more polished game, a juggernaut that makes for unfair comparisons. In void, AoE IV would be pretty good, but now it kind of gets dragged down by the existence of its grandpappy.
>AoE II is just so much more polished game
KEK
AoE4 should overtake AoE2, if they just keep adding content, I think.
4 would be lucky to even match 2
opinion immediately discarded because you are dumb
I only played in the beginning, but even though I liked it it needed a higher population cap. Limiting to 200 in a army felt really stupid when the maps actually felt good. The artsyle was unfortunately purposefully bland. The game needed custom maps and a sandbox conquest mode desperately, but I haven't checked in recently to know if it has it yet
AoE 1 = umbalanced but hardcore
AoE 2 = brood war
AoE 3 = Warcraft 3 kind of shit
AoE 4 = Rockefeller grandson influencer
AoM = trash
AoEO = weird like mobile game
It'll never match 2, but maybe it can be useful in eventually funding AoE5.
>It'll never match 2
What do these 2 trannies base their opinions off, nostalgia? That's the thing with nostalgia that 2tards don't understand, it's better kept in the past because revisiting it will NEVER match the memories. At that point you're muddying those memories. The nostalgic memories I've had over aoe2 have been shit on by you 2 trannies. Not only that but utterly bastardized by the aoe2de mod-tier content. It's whatever now and it is what it is.
>What do these 2 trannies base their opinions off, nostalgia?
We still play the game today. It's a live service game that received a balance patch just 12 days ago.
>It's a live service game
Based on a 23 year old game engine.
>DE has some great campaigns
Jank
2 has garbage AI and terrible pathing issues. That alone makes it worth playing the newer titles over it.
>In a race
Lolwut. Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings was released and completed in 1999
Age of Empires IV was released in 2021. It's not a race.
>AoE2 art style/direction is timeless and will never age
>sprites and 2-dimensionality is timeless
Maybe because of how basic it is.
>AoE4 will actually begin to look worse and worse relative to newer games coming out
AoE2 has had numerous graphical overhauls so moot point.
>Based on a 23 year old game engine.
Irrelevant. Latest patch is 12 days old.
>2 has garbage AI and terrible pathing issues.
2 has the best AI in AoE. It doesn't even cheat. The "terrible pathing issues" are recent, and being resolved. They've shown what they intend the new pathing to look like. It's lovely. It's just only in SP for this patch because they wanted feedback.
Obvious troll, but AoE4 kids can't even keep their thread alive.
>2 has garbage AI and terrible pathing issues
The madlads actually went and coded a proper AI that actually plays the game.
DE has some great campaigns, I doubt you've played even half
If you're looking for single player content, then it's worth playing AOE1 DE and see if you like it. It's a bit fiddly compared to later entries, but has the cool antiquity setting.
AOE2 DE has insane amounts of single player campaigns and battles are are the best I've played in an RTS, so that'll take up lots of time.
AOE3 DE the campaigns were more fictional and silly, but still a cool game.
Never played AOE4 campaigns but heard they were set up like documentaries?
If you want multiplayer, then it'll depend on what system mechanics you like best. I personally like AoE2 the most followed by 3. I tried 4 when it came out but never really clicked with it. Found that it played like a mix of AoE and something like CoH with unit abilities and really unique faction design. That's not bad at all, but just different, so it's worth trying them out to see what you think, or at least having that knowledge before jumping in.
>AOE2 DE has insane amounts of single player campaigns
Bro those DE campaigns are jank as frick. They don't shine a little to the original soulful campaigns. Making and playing your own scenarios is more fun than that.
>AoM = trash
Lmao
do you mean DE ruined the existing campaigns and I should buy HD instead? or you mean that the new campaigns made by the community and for new civs suck.
Aoe1 is not that bad. it feels about as antiquated as WC2
AoE2 DE is the pinnacle of Age of Empires and this is reflected in strong consistent player numbers, don't let a lone schizo tell you otherwise
Now post gamepass numbers. Most of AoE2gays are povertygays in third world shitholes that can't afford a powerful enough PC to play anything more than a $20.00 20 year old game being propped up by non-canonical mod-based content.
>trebs are a wincon
That's one reason I don't like AoE2. There is a narrow meta that punishes players that want to get creative and play their way. AoE4 is more flexible, partly because of civ asymmetry. AoE2 the civs are largely the same which is why the meta is as narrow as it is and why build orders are critical.
>That's one reason I don't like AoE2. There is a narrow meta that punishes players that want to get creative and play their way.
You learn to operate within the existing framework, and you'll find that you have more options for expression precisely because there are limits on what's viable. It doesn't encourage degenerate playstyles like massing light cav from start to finish just because you're playing "the light cav civ".
Age of Empires 4 is not "flexible". It doesn't have strong enough core gameplay for that. Each civ has a set of options, and those options are either generic, or heavily customized to encourage one style of play. They have less "uniqueness" in their attributes within each civ than AoE2 does, because the differences are designed to be meaningless.
>AoE2 the civs are largely the same which is why the meta is as narrow as it is and why build orders are critical.
AoE4 was made for people like you.
I disagree, people do just build whatever their civ has a bonus for, and all the new civs encourage that by seriously buffing one unit type and leaving the others out to dry.
civs originally emphasized
- a portion of the tech tree
- a unique unit
- cool looking buildings
all of this has been way over blown with the focus on bonuses.
another thing constraining the meta is people watching too much YouTube and copying pro players.
homies out here splitting archers and repairing magonels when they don't even produce villagers constantly or understand how to build a unit comp.
>I disagree, people do just build whatever their civ has a bonus for, and all the new civs encourage that by seriously buffing one unit type and leaving the others out to dry.
In AoE2? Maybe if you're playing against inflated-elo Frank/Ethiopian/Briton mains, or civs designed to be one-trick ponies like Celts and Gurjaras, but if your civ doesn't railroad you down a unit line, you get plenty of variation.
>another thing constraining the meta is people watching too much YouTube and copying pro players.
Lemmings being lemmings isn't a game design issue.
>They have less "uniqueness" in their attributes within each civ than AoE2 does, because the differences are designed to be meaningless.
Copium overdose
>non-canonical
this isn't one of your animes schizo what the frick are you talking about
nah. I've played since the 90s. DE is good for multiplayer because everyone is on, but that's it. they have too many civs and they vary in quality enormously (not to mention 'pay to win'). they also fricked up campaign voice acting and they keep messing up the code.
im specifically wondering if the campaigns have been made worse besides what I mentioned
>they have too many civs
Upgrade your brain, brainlet.
>and they vary in quality enormously (not to mention 'pay to win').
All of the civs are pretty well-designed, anon. Name examples if you want to say some aren't.
>No one knows how to play Burgundians,
>Sicilians have been a meme since LotW
>Poles have a powerspike that only lasts from the time they research Szlachta to the time their enemy puts chem on arbs,
Burgundians are easy, you use economical to tech use your early knight rush before either moving into unique units or moving into gunpowder overdrive
Oh.. if you dare attack my base farmers of the world will rise up
>Burgundians are easy
>you use economical to tech
English?
>use your early knight rush
Don't have one
>before either moving into unique units
There's no reason to make the Coustillier
>moving into gunpowder overdrive
Their Hand Cannoneers are just a bit better against cavalry. It's not your generic power unit.
>Oh.. if you dare attack my base farmers of the world will rise up
And then you spend the next 10-20 minutes trying to piece your eco back together while your enemy switches into arbs and fricks you sideways.
>It's impossible to balance that many civs which leads to players gravitating towards the few strongest civs.
Almost all of them have winrates ranging between 45 and 55% (if their sample sizes are decent). The ones that don't fit in this range get attention from devs and players, unless it's a pubstomping issue.
You just got filtered by a game having a knowledge floor.
hey homosexual. you made two comments that contradict each other. one you claim the balance is pretty good and all the civs essential and the next you list a good number of unbalanced civs.
exactly. it's interesting to have say an infantry civ and a cav civ and maybe a hybrid that's not as strong at either.
but the way it is now is there is a strong civ and stronger civ.
can I get a onions face reply to this one?
>one you claim the balance is pretty good and all the civs essential and the next you list a good number of unbalanced civs.
"Unbalanced" at low/mid elo, like anything, but studied players can put most in the ground with real consistency. Check Briton winrates.
>they have too many civs
This is a huge gripe. Original AoE2 civ count was fine but the spam of civs from HD and DE is ridiculous. It's impossible to balance that many civs which leads to players gravitating towards the few strongest civs. That is for certain considering how sweaty AoE2 is.
That's where Ai should be used to calculate and balance them all evenly
4 just can't match 2 and can't ever overcome it whilst they're both being well-supported. In a race, you can't catch up with a guy who started 20 meters ahead of you and matches your pace.
Imagine if, for example, Tekken Tag Tournament 2 was still getting balance updates, character DLC, etc. Literally nobody would be playing Tekken 7 and or 8.
It also helps that the AoE2 art style/direction is timeless and will never age, while AoE4 will actually begin to look worse and worse relative to newer games coming out, since it went with such an ugly, already dated clash-of-clans art style.
Yes, it is good. Campaign is short but it is more fun than 2. There are still some bugs that are frustrating, but as long as you are not trying to become AOE sweat-lord pro, it won’t bother you
Campaign is not better than 2, but overall gameplay and multiplayer is just faster paced with more fluid RTS mechanics — i worded that poorly. Right now rams are overpowered which is lame but there are more viable siege units than 2 anyway, and better counters so it is a moot point and will get patched/balanced.
>but there are more viable siege units than 2 anyway
Anon, mangonels ARE the anti-crossbow meta, and trebs are a wincon. What?
Behold, Jerusalem!
Seriously, even garage-made indie games put more effort into presentation than these guys. Just how bad are their sales figures to work with what's essentially 13 year old's deviantart commissions?
>4 variant civilizations
What did they mean by this?
Wait...were they using the first 10-12 civs as templates for future civ types?
If so, then bravo, devs.
>Calling Romans the Byzantines
>Eurocentrism in 2023
Romanbros, not like this...
Why did they have to do us dirty
https://medium.com/exploring-history/there-was-no-such-thing-as-the-byzantine-empire-87b68fd95631
Byzantine is an accepted term in historiography, brainlet.
>Byzantine is an accepted term in Western school of historiography, brainlet
I don't give a frick what non-westerners say about Rome/Byzantium
>I don't care that I'm ignorant
Ok so why bring it up?
Just what eveyone loves; palette swap characters
???
AoE2 units are literally all the same besides uniques.
???
Isn't Aoe2 the most beloved game in the franchise?
variant for french like franks, if I had to guess then its going to be a few units that are different or something
so mostly same as the base civ but depending on what is changed I guess the variants could play quite differently in multiplayer? like if they have some strong unit or mechanic that is different that gives rise to new strategies
What the frick are the devs smoking with these variant civs? This shit is straight out of World of Warcraft.
Well the plus side is that it's only $15.
What do you mean, AoE has found a successful audience.
The key to success being low-risk, low-budget much like any remastero-remake out there.
People like these anons are happy to have a supported game
, Microsoft makes a few hundred thousand bucks along the way.
As long as the price is right, and it is
.
Food analogies uber alles.
You need some low-budget, low production value offerings to cover the full range of the market.
And AoE is not the main course of McMicrosoft, it is the soda/fries you pay an extra buck for as a side.
the problem is that aoe players are basically canadians and want their putine as it used to be
what the frick
those don't sound like actual empires or nations
how does that make sense
but it is getting 2 new civs moron
Funny with the warcraft reference cause the variant civs are getting hero units, guess we WC3 now
>Yo what civ are you picking
>Jeanne d' Arc
>What, I said civ?
>Jeanne d' Arc
Bruh. This is like AoE4 and AoM, the game just turned in a whole different direction.
I can't say much yet I have to try it and see but this was certainly unexpected and I'm excited to see.
https://www.ageofempires.com/news/aoeiv-the-sultans-ascend-pre-order-now/
Also reminds me of MTG Commander and with more creative freedom the devs have than before.
>The Byzantines civilization focuses on the Eastern Roman Empire which lasted over a thousand years. Players will be able to build aqueducts and cisterns, harvest a new resource, and hire mercenaries.
Romanbros, we are so back
>Romans are finally added(can't believe they were not in the base game)
That's the only reason I'm gonna give this trash game a second chance. At least until Stormgate or ZeroSpace comes out.
Now in your historical strategy game:
Order of the Dragon vs Empire of Jade
This will be $15. Than you for your cooperation.
And also on that note, how did empire of jade even make it through the diversity officer. This is the one time they were supposed to do their job.
Order of the Dragon was real.
What the frick. I expected that variants would be a way to include more civs without having to create completely unique mechanics for every one, and to use that to bunch up civs historically close to each other with some differences, eg. Slavs and Bulgarians in AoE II.
For AoE IV it could have been something like French - Burgundians or Rus - Novgorod etc., but this shit here is horrible.
Everyone thought that in the few hours from announcement of "variant civs" to when people noticed they (probably accidentally) posted the names on the console store page. People expected that they are going to reuse assets to represent different civs that are close enough. I also thought that they were going to at least try to keep the crusade theme and they were going to make crusader states civs, like french variant being kingdom of jerusalem.
Instead I think they specifically went out of their way to not name the civs after anything in particular so nobody gets offended they are only a variant and not a full but as a result they ended with with weird naming scheme that's not consistent with the base game and not even with each other. Ranging from painfully generic like the sultans army, even though it's obviously based on Saladin/Mamlukes, to straight up fictional fantasy names in empire of jade. Order of the Dragon is a real thing but it's a historical footnote that has never been an independent military force and Joan stick out like a sore thumb being names after a specific person.
I think every single person who read the announcement thought the same thing. It's just the devs having a shining Relic moment that subverted every expectation to fail us.
Absolute troll units, and I love them for this.
>like French - Burgundians or Rus - Novgorod
That would be cool. Maybe it's the Paradox in me but having Novgorod and Muscovy as variant civs for the Rus. Maybe a Varangian variant to cover the vikings. Novgorod could be more trade focused while Muscovy more military focused. But then that's the point of the parent civ to be all encompassing and blending the themes together in one package.
Muscovy was irrelevant during the vast majority of the middle ages
The only civs that were "relevant" during most of the middle ages were China, Byzantium, the Mongol Empire, the Caliphates (and their Persian predecessors), and Delhi.
Read that post and my reply again. We're talking about variant civs. Your post is irrelevant.
>China, Byzantium, the Mongol Empire, the Caliphates (and their Persian predecessors), and Delhi.
Yup. Popular Western Medieval history loves to focus on Europe but fact of the matter is most of the relevance and action was happening East.
what you mean by action? mongols pillaging everything?
Most likely, some form of Chinese rebellion. That usually does it.
>order of the dragon
holy kino
>Campaign based around Muslims defending against the Crusades
Jesus christ how fricking cucked is this game?
I see what you did there
>How dare they heckin' make a campaign where you play as the good guys
>I want to play as le ebin crusaders and defend EVROPA
>Commies ruining everything
>AoE2 had a Saladin campaign?
>Uhhh... that doesn't count!
The Crusaders are the good guys.
>Being a historylet.
Yes.
>The Crusaders are the good g-ACKK
By Allah, behave yourself. I will give you a taste of my shoe.
shan't be playing until they change that soulless UI
More Jeanne d’arc stuff today. I want whatever the devs are smoking.
>In the Dark Age, Jeanne takes the role of a villager who gains experience by constructing buildings and gathering resources. Once level 2 is reached, Jeanne d’Arc must choose her path – equipping a sword or bow to fight with and unlocking several new abilities which can turn the tides of battle.
>At Level 2, Joanne can choose to become an archer or a woman-at-arms, gaining an ability based on this choice.
>.... woman-at-arms
>At Level 4 Jeanne has completed the Journey of the Hero. Now, Jeanne wields a heavy cannon based on her weapon choice.
>... Jeanne wields a heavy cannon...
>... she gains a powerful Ultimate ability
You've absolutely made my day, Relic. 10/10, such high level of shitposting deserves a game award of its own.
Anons, let's get together for the ritual!
I shall start.
>post YFW you're not a AoE4-gay.
Trying too hard.
>It's real
It's like they read every complaint that Joan shouldn't have been a fighting hero unit in the campaign, then saw an opportunity to piss off SPgays, MPgays, and even people who just don't play the game.
I pity the youtubers trying to hold this wreck up so they can have a community worship them, because I truly couldn't do it.
This is just terrible.
>Rally call spawns units from nothing
There goes the RTS...
>Joan shouldn't have been a fighting hero unit in the campaign
She was in AoE2 and no one had an incel fit about that
I wanted to try the game again after a while and after starting up a skirmish as mongols and getting a female Khan unit I just knew this game is not for me. A (game) pass.
The female khans are based though.
how will you like female us presidents?
How have you liked male USA presidents? Regardless of sex, I think we can agree the average career politician is deplorable.
Female leaders aren't inherently bad just like male leaders aren't. Disregarding the game because it is more inclusive and goes for whole representation is silly however.
The point isn't one about women being unfit or bad at leading. The point is the blatant historical Inaccuracy. I thought this games at least try to respect history. But I guess it needs to be rewritten so it fits with the current equality and diversity quotas. it's fricking tiresome.
>I thought this games at least try to respect history.
Yeah really respectful when the Celts in AoE2 look like sheepfrickers because of Braveheart.
Scots love Braveheart, cope
no we fricking don't you smelly arrogant burger
>What would an Age of Empires version of a low-unit-count army of powerful units look like? What benefits would that provide to players struggling with cognitive load? What awesome gameplay moments could that deliver? From there was born the Order of the Dragon.
You can't be serious
...Didn't we have Portugal for exactly that in AoE2?
I haven't seen the OotD trailer, but when I do, I'm going to be comparing it to Portugal.
Or like the Atlanteans in Age of Mythology: The Titans
They balanced it by units having higher pop counts, higher cost, and longer build time. Atlantean citizens didn't need resource drop off points and worked faster. I doubt they're going to take it that much into fantasy mechanics though.
what is up with the "no fun allowed" attitude
The good thing about all of this "variants" is the seethe is causing from those dusty wormbooks.
it's so fun, but also i think is to blame all the content creators selling this as "6 new civs" when only 2 are fully new is just dishonest, it's like they are so desperate to create some sort of fake hype
>Joan factions is centered around an evolving mechanic that level her up and give her an handcanon at the end
Isn't Jeanne's whole thing that she didn't do any actual combat herself? You can't get canonised as a saint if you kill people.
>You can't get canonised as a saint if you kill people.
Not necessarily, killing enemies in a just war isn't a sin. King Saint Louis IX waged two Crusades. In the Old Testament, Joshua, for example, slew many.
Although to be clear, yes, Saint Joan of Arc (ora pro nobis) didn't directly fight in person.
fricking anglos, once again mocking our girl
Constantine is a saint and he boiled his wife and son alive
Constantine is a bit of a special case because he got baptised on his death bed, and the way baptism works is all the sins you commit until then are forgiven. Perks of having foreknowledge of when you're going to die.
>Eastern Roman Empire campaign
Consider me sold
Also from what I'm reading he had them executed, so he didn't do the job himself.
Useless trivia: Vlad the Impaler's father, Vlad II, was a member of the OotD, hence the title Dracul (the Dragon), which makes Vlad III Drăculea (son of the Dragon).
also they renamed two of the variants :
>Jade Empire become Zhu Xi’s Legacy
>Sultan Army become Ayyubids
>rename the variants no one had any problems with
>keep jeane bullshit
lol it does seem like they hate their fans
Tons of people were b***hing about Jade Empire what are you talking about?
it's good but im not in a very rtsy mood often so i dont play it. i really enjoyed the ottoman challenge though. they need to make lots more of those. 3 starring a well-designed challenge is a clear indication that you got good.
How active and fun is the ranked 1v1 mode in aoe4?
it's a bit slow, but it's still active
it's the only fun mode, filled with tons of agression, instead of how turtly team games get (i only do 1v1's)
>Ayyubids whole gimmic is that have a choice between two bonus per wings at their house of wisdom
wow such a game changer
Bonuses scale per age giving the player an interesting strategic choice of which bonus of two in a wing to choose at which age, trading early payoff vs later for larger payout. Being able to switch desert raiders from using a bow or sword and camel lancers charge bonus means the Ayyubids are going to be a variant civ that rewards high level micro play. Tower of the sultan looks sick, can't wait to play Ayyubids.