Don't go into modern and only do future as a separate spinoff like Age of Mythology.
There was no reason why age had to cover time periods in a linear fashion, since in the end you don't carry over your victories into a sequel.
Like, the next age of empires could be a proper classical age one, no bronze age stuff or Civs that are fricking thousands of years apart. (Three thousand years between the oldest civ and the youngest civ).
Next one could be victorian, so on so forth.
But modern doesn't work in Age of Empires style, aviations, trenches and long range artillery kills the quick base and skirmish logic of the game.
Future works if you use sci fantasy to bring back skirmishes but there is no historical context to it, what would the empires be? Amerika, Russian Federal Empire, new shogunate of Japan and Wakanda? Better go full spinoff for that.
I am surprised no one tried to mod this into a true Age of Empires IV (or use the tech tree as a base to mod AoEII). Granted, stuff like aircraft standing still on the sky would look jarring.
>Future works if you use sci fantasy to bring back skirmishes but there is no historical context to it, what would the empires be? Amerika, Russian Federal Empire, new shogunate of Japan and Wakanda? Better go full spinoff for that.
You've just described Earth 21x0 series
>Abandon all the games >Wait 10 years >Release a modernized version of the most popular game out of nowhere >don't elaborate >Release new expansions unannounced >explain nothing >suddenly announce release remasters of all the games >completely unprompted, make a new game in the same setting as the most popular game 20 years apart >leave everyone confused and concerned
A game that spans the bronze age and the early modern period and expands on the politician choices on aging up from AoE 3 to evolve your civilization through the ages
thats aoeo but they filled on its release with israelite dlc and stuff and yes this was the og aoe 4 before the backslash for cartoonish graph and being forced to rebrand
It detracts from AOE's character to bring it that far forward or to bring it to a place where there's no history (at least campaigns wise but also factions). If you have no history to go off of its just some made up shit which works for games like EE/RoN but I feel like doesn't match AOE's recent and even older titles focus on history.
I guess you could take it to more modern stuff but you run into a over-saturated market and it'd be a hard sell going up against giants like CnC,CoH, even new shit like 8/9 bit armies, etc.
It feels like a stretch of the IP guess is the TLDR.
>I guess you could take it to more modern stuff but you run into a over-saturated market
RTS is a heavily undersaturated market. I wish we got as much RTS slop as roguelike slop and FPS slop and RPG slop we get every year
Age I: Edwardian Era
Age II: Early WW1
Age II: Late WW1-Early Interwar
Age III: Late Interwar - Early WW2
Age IV: Late WW2 (Panther goodness) - Korean War
Age V: Vietnam War
Age I: Edwardian Era
Age II: Early WW1
Age II: Late WW1-Early Interwar
Age III: Late Interwar - Early WW2
Age IV: Late WW2 (Panther goodness) - Korean War
Age V: Vietnam War
I know it's on the pic, but I feel an Age of Empires IV's timeframe should be like Victoria 3's: Start right where AoE III left (or earlier) and end before world war II. Leave WW2 and onwards for an AoE V and frick sci-fi, the market's already full of starcraft wannabes..
that's also great, but it condenses too many big leaps in technology. Early WW1 and late WW1 are unrecognizable from each other. Same with early WW2 and late WW2.
I mean, the leap between dark age nomadic tribals and imperial elite cannon galleons is also pretty dramatic. You just simplify for gameplay and focus on the coolest shit, history autist-kun
This is nonsense. The previous games had you build your empire from scratch, going from early rushes to conflicts that could realistically go on for decades of changing eras, and didn't have you go through totally ridiculous leaps in technology. And what relevant empires could you even add that aren't just Americans and Soviets.
Dropping you right into the bloodbath that was WWI so that you could harass the opponent's villagers with your six doughboys is plain silly. Even just the few years of WWII alone provide enough material for a full-blown game, from tankettes to super heavy tanks, biplanes to early jets, and wunderwaffe as a replacement for wonders.
that's a shit argument, Black. By your logic of every civ having to be built from scratch, the Byzantines and Chinese wouldn't make it into AoE2 because they already were the biggest empires of their time. >Dropping you right into the bloodbath that was WWI so that you could harass the opponent's villagers with your six doughboys is plain silly.
my Black person in christ, China lost like 13 million people in a single rebellion during the dark ages. Having Age I be peaceful for China would be silly by your logic.
I'd rather see something like: >Age I: 1800-1830, basic line infantry and scouting cavalry >Age II: 1830-1860, cannons, skirmishers and naval ships >Age III: 1860-1890, mortars, Gatling guns, hot air balloon for large LOS, Unique units >Age IV: 1891-1914, Submarines, skirmishers and infantry perhaps merge into a mainline infantry, very early scout planes and scout cars >Age V: 1914-1917, Tanks, Biplanes, Bombers
>Age I: 1800-1830, basic line infantry and scouting cavalry >Age II: 1830-1860, cannons, skirmishers and naval ships >Age III: 1860-1890, mortars, Gatling guns, hot air balloon for large LOS, Unique units
you've described aoe3 >Age IV: 1891-1914, Submarines, skirmishers and infantry perhaps merge into a mainline infantry, very early scout planes and scout cars >Age V: 1914-1917, Tanks, Biplanes, Bombers
this is the aoe4 we were robbed of, except it's missing interwar period and then ww2 shit
Unfortunately AoE3 has actual ass controls and the unit balancing is so fricking moronic. Snares were a terrible choice and the unit counter triangle of giving some units up to 10x modifiers against others, but dealing only 1/10 damage to anyone who they aren't just feels terrible.
aoeo the og aoe 4 before the rebranding already fixed that one but nobody gives a shit bcuz few ppl played it. the solution is anti snare mechanic in tiers which can make ealry units snare obsolete in favour of mobile or advanced units that counter those.
>Snares were a terrible choice
I agree it doesn't add anything fun to the game and just forces you to sacrifice a small portion of your troops when retreating, but I wouldn't go as far as "terrible". I see it as an incredibly primitive way of turning "unit under fire seeking immediate cover" into snaring mechanics. It is what it is.
I still don't understand why they did Age of Empires 2: 2 when the DE maintained the core audience and is still getting updates.
Trench warfare evolving to a mobile or armored doctrine would've been a good AoE4 game.
Syncretizing the AoE formula with EE or RoN would've been ludo af
I believe it should be >Great War >Interwar >World War II >Cold War
There were several games in the 00s that attempted depicting modern conflicts through AoE-like gameplay, they simply didn't work for me. >Rise of Nations >Empire Earth >Empires: Dawn of the Modern World
Rock paper scissors works well up to a point, but it falls apart past a certain time period. For example, these games play predictably in the pre-20th century ages, very similar to AoE II. However, in the 20th century ages, the infantry, cavalry, and archers were replaced with anti tank guys (kill tanks), tanks (kill infantry and machine guns), regular infantry (kill AT units), machine gunners (kill infantry). These carried on the rock paper scissors formula of the previous ages.
The result was AT units killing tanks but doing very little damage to infantry, which doesn't make sense since a direct hit with a bazooka or field gun should kill humans easily. The infantry would easily kill the bazooka guys, but could barely damage machine gunners, even though both would be theoretically entrenched in reality. Machine gunners easily killed infantry but could barely damage the AT guys (and AT guys could barely damage them). It doesn't work imo, and is probably the rock paper scissors formula never caught on for 20th century settings like it did for earlier periods.
The 20th century RTSs that did succeed had much more complex systems and were very different type of games, like Blitzkrieg, Men of War, Company of Heroes, etc. It's like trying to make a Gulf War mod for Total War, no reason that it should work considering the formula is not built to represent the period.
And if they did make a completely different type of game to accommodate the setting, it wouldn't feel like an AoE game and would feel out of place. AoE 3 already did for many despite the rock paper scissors formula still working well there.
For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield, so resource gathering would have to occur in different ways. You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle, the game would have to simulate their transport into the map from an off-map location like in company of heroes. Already, this would be a completely different game from the rest of the series.
Building a village and gathering local resources to build your army is believable in the middle ages, it represents feudalism. It still works in the ancient world and its centralized empires, since colonization was still occurring in places that are now settled. For example, the Romans founded many cities in places they conquered, not counting communities they conquered and simply renamed.
Take AoE 3, for example. There's a reason they chose to set it in the new world and not Europe. The only way they could have made the formula work believably is to make it about settlers establishing colonies in uncharted territory. Still, they simulated the transport of soldiers and resources from the old world through the home city mechanic. If they felt the need to do this in a period predating WW1 by centuries, they certainly would have to completely transform the gameplay formula to represent the industrialized world. The AoE base building formula just doesn't work for depicting modern conflicts, and if they changed the formula to suit, then it would be a different game from the rest, not recognizable as an AoE game.
>For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield, so resource gathering would have to occur in different ways. You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle
Why? Why is it fine to do that in an old timey game?
>For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield
that's right, you would have conscripts doing all that backbreaking work >You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle
as opposed to AoE2 and 3's spawning from thin air? Why are you complicating issues solved decades ago? You can totally have a military drill field near the frontline, that's literally what ukies do right now to get conscripts accustomed to the sound of artillery fire >Already, this would be a completely different game from the rest of the series.
no, you're just making up problems that don't exist >Take AoE 3, for example. There's a reason they chose to set it in the new world and not Europe. The only way they could have made the formula work believably is to make it about settlers establishing colonies in uncharted territory.
...because colonial era Europe was basically all Manhattan and skyscrapers by that point? What is the point you're trying to make here? They made colonial nations so they could have the home capital card gimmick.
AoE2 has aztec eagle warriors going up against polish winged hussars. I guess the game doesn't exist because logically it doesn't make sense for this encounter to happen, and we can't have that in a video game!!! Everything MUST be logical, WHAT do they eat???????? >The AoE base building formula just doesn't work for depicting modern conflicts, and if they changed the formula to suit, then it would be a different game from the rest, not recognizable as an AoE game
pic related.
Awful, just awful takes all around.
>you would have conscripts doing all that backbreaking work
No, you wouldn't have conscripts mine gold and farm food in the battlefield, not sure what you're talking about. I didn't read the rest of the post.
>I didn't read the rest of the post.
you can cope however you want, it doesn't dismiss or justify your awful takes on game design. It's a good thing you're not in charge of any games and your say has no value in the real world.
>For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield
that's right, you would have conscripts doing all that backbreaking work >You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle
as opposed to AoE2 and 3's spawning from thin air? Why are you complicating issues solved decades ago? You can totally have a military drill field near the frontline, that's literally what ukies do right now to get conscripts accustomed to the sound of artillery fire >Already, this would be a completely different game from the rest of the series.
no, you're just making up problems that don't exist >Take AoE 3, for example. There's a reason they chose to set it in the new world and not Europe. The only way they could have made the formula work believably is to make it about settlers establishing colonies in uncharted territory.
...because colonial era Europe was basically all Manhattan and skyscrapers by that point? What is the point you're trying to make here? They made colonial nations so they could have the home capital card gimmick.
AoE2 has aztec eagle warriors going up against polish winged hussars. I guess the game doesn't exist because logically it doesn't make sense for this encounter to happen, and we can't have that in a video game!!! Everything MUST be logical, WHAT do they eat???????? >The AoE base building formula just doesn't work for depicting modern conflicts, and if they changed the formula to suit, then it would be a different game from the rest, not recognizable as an AoE game
pic related.
Awful, just awful takes all around.
it doesn't work so much they actually made an expansion for it! AND SOLD IT! Kek! What a bunch of morons, if only they listened to Gankereddit squad complete with sentence spacing...
>I didn't read the rest of the post.
you can cope however you want, it doesn't dismiss or justify your awful takes on game design. It's a good thing you're not in charge of any games and your say has no value in the real world.
We already have the 00s takes on modern periods like RoN and EE. If that's what you want, play that. They are shit in the 20th century though, good luck.
it takes 4+ springald shots to kill a human unit in aoe4
i takes a scorpion 4-5+ shots, large log sized bolts mind you, to kill ahuman sized unit.
you talk shit about my baby Empires dawn of the modern world again i will fricking murk you
Yes, rock paper scissors already struggles in its most ideal setting. Actually play Empires DotMW, it's much worse.
Cossacks does "build your base and train your troops" just fine.
I think the formula struggles for anything post WW1, but as long as you begin the game in the early 1800's, just give the player a couple houses and a mill in addition to the starting town center and boom, you are starting with an existing "town"
EE 1 was really good, if only someone could fix the Ai. There is another game that is the spiritual sucessor, but i didn't get any desire to play, even forgot the name...
>AoE games >worst parts of any RTS game rolled into one game >paired with modern DLC whoring to match any CA game
I still can't see why anyone thinks this trash is any good.
I am glad someone realized it was a terrible idea
let's hear your idea then. Go ahead.
Don't go into modern and only do future as a separate spinoff like Age of Mythology.
There was no reason why age had to cover time periods in a linear fashion, since in the end you don't carry over your victories into a sequel.
Like, the next age of empires could be a proper classical age one, no bronze age stuff or Civs that are fricking thousands of years apart. (Three thousand years between the oldest civ and the youngest civ).
Next one could be victorian, so on so forth.
But modern doesn't work in Age of Empires style, aviations, trenches and long range artillery kills the quick base and skirmish logic of the game.
Future works if you use sci fantasy to bring back skirmishes but there is no historical context to it, what would the empires be? Amerika, Russian Federal Empire, new shogunate of Japan and Wakanda? Better go full spinoff for that.
>But modern doesn't work in Age of Empires style
Rise of Nations and C&C begs to differ.
They are a proof that it doesn't
they prove that it doesn't make sense if anything
>Ancient Americans
>But modern doesn't work in Age of Empires style, aviations, trenches and long range artillery kills the quick base and skirmish logic of the game.
I am surprised no one tried to mod this into a true Age of Empires IV (or use the tech tree as a base to mod AoEII). Granted, stuff like aircraft standing still on the sky would look jarring.
it can be made to "hover" up and down in place when idle.
modding nu-RTS is a sisyphean task which is why people just mod Empire at War.
>aircraft standing still on the sky
just make it all helicopters
Why not make them like in Rise of Nations?
AoE > RoN
>AoE better
Nonsensical, there's no planes in AoE
>Future works if you use sci fantasy to bring back skirmishes but there is no historical context to it, what would the empires be? Amerika, Russian Federal Empire, new shogunate of Japan and Wakanda? Better go full spinoff for that.
You've just described Earth 21x0 series
>Abandon all the games
>Wait 10 years
>Release a modernized version of the most popular game out of nowhere
>don't elaborate
>Release new expansions unannounced
>explain nothing
>suddenly announce release remasters of all the games
>completely unprompted, make a new game in the same setting as the most popular game 20 years apart
>leave everyone confused and concerned
A game that spans the bronze age and the early modern period and expands on the politician choices on aging up from AoE 3 to evolve your civilization through the ages
AOE4 should have been set in the classical era. It’s really that simple.
thats aoeo but they filled on its release with israelite dlc and stuff and yes this was the og aoe 4 before the backslash for cartoonish graph and being forced to rebrand
You are a terrible idea
Yup. I don’t want to play WW1 age of empires it would be fricking terrible. Also this was never really a plan. Just promotional art.
Anon, I am sorry that it has got to be me who tells you, but you are moronic bro.
My condolences
>he doesn't know about Empires: Dawn of the Modern World
It detracts from AOE's character to bring it that far forward or to bring it to a place where there's no history (at least campaigns wise but also factions). If you have no history to go off of its just some made up shit which works for games like EE/RoN but I feel like doesn't match AOE's recent and even older titles focus on history.
I guess you could take it to more modern stuff but you run into a over-saturated market and it'd be a hard sell going up against giants like CnC,CoH, even new shit like 8/9 bit armies, etc.
It feels like a stretch of the IP guess is the TLDR.
>I guess you could take it to more modern stuff but you run into a over-saturated market
RTS is a heavily undersaturated market. I wish we got as much RTS slop as roguelike slop and FPS slop and RPG slop we get every year
EMPIRE EARTH KINO PLEASE
Historygays should just get the fricking rope so we can get some good games that aren't hindered by their autism.
I think that strategy has much bigger problems than the boogyman in your head
>he thinks AoE2 would survive without "Sometimes... I miss it."
What if we hang MPgays, instead?
then you'd get no strategy games at all.
Awful idea
let's hear yours. So far it's microsoft 1:0 vst halfwit squad
>wanting more WW2 slop
this, there's way too many WW2 rts games being made as it is
Modern AoE idea
Age I: Edwardian Era
Age II: Early WW1
Age II: Late WW1-Early Interwar
Age III: Late Interwar - Early WW2
Age IV: Late WW2 (Panther goodness) - Korean War
Age V: Vietnam War
I: Pre WW1 (edwardian)
II: WW1
III: WW2
IV: Cold War
V: Modern
I know it's on the pic, but I feel an Age of Empires IV's timeframe should be like Victoria 3's: Start right where AoE III left (or earlier) and end before world war II. Leave WW2 and onwards for an AoE V and frick sci-fi, the market's already full of starcraft wannabes..
that's also great, but it condenses too many big leaps in technology. Early WW1 and late WW1 are unrecognizable from each other. Same with early WW2 and late WW2.
I mean, the leap between dark age nomadic tribals and imperial elite cannon galleons is also pretty dramatic. You just simplify for gameplay and focus on the coolest shit, history autist-kun
This is nonsense. The previous games had you build your empire from scratch, going from early rushes to conflicts that could realistically go on for decades of changing eras, and didn't have you go through totally ridiculous leaps in technology. And what relevant empires could you even add that aren't just Americans and Soviets.
Dropping you right into the bloodbath that was WWI so that you could harass the opponent's villagers with your six doughboys is plain silly. Even just the few years of WWII alone provide enough material for a full-blown game, from tankettes to super heavy tanks, biplanes to early jets, and wunderwaffe as a replacement for wonders.
that's a shit argument, Black. By your logic of every civ having to be built from scratch, the Byzantines and Chinese wouldn't make it into AoE2 because they already were the biggest empires of their time.
>Dropping you right into the bloodbath that was WWI so that you could harass the opponent's villagers with your six doughboys is plain silly.
my Black person in christ, China lost like 13 million people in a single rebellion during the dark ages. Having Age I be peaceful for China would be silly by your logic.
decisive Tang victory
Just give me a proper 20th century chinese warlords game
it would suit AoE gameplay, unironically
Still waiting for Empire Earth remaster
I'd rather see something like:
>Age I: 1800-1830, basic line infantry and scouting cavalry
>Age II: 1830-1860, cannons, skirmishers and naval ships
>Age III: 1860-1890, mortars, Gatling guns, hot air balloon for large LOS, Unique units
>Age IV: 1891-1914, Submarines, skirmishers and infantry perhaps merge into a mainline infantry, very early scout planes and scout cars
>Age V: 1914-1917, Tanks, Biplanes, Bombers
>Age I: 1800-1830, basic line infantry and scouting cavalry
>Age II: 1830-1860, cannons, skirmishers and naval ships
>Age III: 1860-1890, mortars, Gatling guns, hot air balloon for large LOS, Unique units
you've described aoe3
>Age IV: 1891-1914, Submarines, skirmishers and infantry perhaps merge into a mainline infantry, very early scout planes and scout cars
>Age V: 1914-1917, Tanks, Biplanes, Bombers
this is the aoe4 we were robbed of, except it's missing interwar period and then ww2 shit
Unfortunately AoE3 has actual ass controls and the unit balancing is so fricking moronic. Snares were a terrible choice and the unit counter triangle of giving some units up to 10x modifiers against others, but dealing only 1/10 damage to anyone who they aren't just feels terrible.
that means you need varied compositions as opposed to mass marines, press stim and a-move
aoeo the og aoe 4 before the rebranding already fixed that one but nobody gives a shit bcuz few ppl played it. the solution is anti snare mechanic in tiers which can make ealry units snare obsolete in favour of mobile or advanced units that counter those.
>Snares were a terrible choice
I agree it doesn't add anything fun to the game and just forces you to sacrifice a small portion of your troops when retreating, but I wouldn't go as far as "terrible". I see it as an incredibly primitive way of turning "unit under fire seeking immediate cover" into snaring mechanics. It is what it is.
>he doenst know about aoeo anti snare mechanics and why snare works well on that tittle
I still don't understand why they did Age of Empires 2: 2 when the DE maintained the core audience and is still getting updates.
Trench warfare evolving to a mobile or armored doctrine would've been a good AoE4 game.
Syncretizing the AoE formula with EE or RoN would've been ludo af
I believe it should be
>Great War
>Interwar
>World War II
>Cold War
Modern Warfare can be DLC.
There were several games in the 00s that attempted depicting modern conflicts through AoE-like gameplay, they simply didn't work for me.
>Rise of Nations
>Empire Earth
>Empires: Dawn of the Modern World
Rock paper scissors works well up to a point, but it falls apart past a certain time period. For example, these games play predictably in the pre-20th century ages, very similar to AoE II. However, in the 20th century ages, the infantry, cavalry, and archers were replaced with anti tank guys (kill tanks), tanks (kill infantry and machine guns), regular infantry (kill AT units), machine gunners (kill infantry). These carried on the rock paper scissors formula of the previous ages.
The result was AT units killing tanks but doing very little damage to infantry, which doesn't make sense since a direct hit with a bazooka or field gun should kill humans easily. The infantry would easily kill the bazooka guys, but could barely damage machine gunners, even though both would be theoretically entrenched in reality. Machine gunners easily killed infantry but could barely damage the AT guys (and AT guys could barely damage them). It doesn't work imo, and is probably the rock paper scissors formula never caught on for 20th century settings like it did for earlier periods.
The 20th century RTSs that did succeed had much more complex systems and were very different type of games, like Blitzkrieg, Men of War, Company of Heroes, etc. It's like trying to make a Gulf War mod for Total War, no reason that it should work considering the formula is not built to represent the period.
And if they did make a completely different type of game to accommodate the setting, it wouldn't feel like an AoE game and would feel out of place. AoE 3 already did for many despite the rock paper scissors formula still working well there.
it takes 4+ springald shots to kill a human unit in aoe4
i takes a scorpion 4-5+ shots, large log sized bolts mind you, to kill ahuman sized unit.
you talk shit about my baby Empires dawn of the modern world again i will fricking murk you
So empire earth?
Hearing people's opinions make me angry, why must you guys have such awful opinions?
For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield, so resource gathering would have to occur in different ways. You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle, the game would have to simulate their transport into the map from an off-map location like in company of heroes. Already, this would be a completely different game from the rest of the series.
Building a village and gathering local resources to build your army is believable in the middle ages, it represents feudalism. It still works in the ancient world and its centralized empires, since colonization was still occurring in places that are now settled. For example, the Romans founded many cities in places they conquered, not counting communities they conquered and simply renamed.
Take AoE 3, for example. There's a reason they chose to set it in the new world and not Europe. The only way they could have made the formula work believably is to make it about settlers establishing colonies in uncharted territory. Still, they simulated the transport of soldiers and resources from the old world through the home city mechanic. If they felt the need to do this in a period predating WW1 by centuries, they certainly would have to completely transform the gameplay formula to represent the industrialized world. The AoE base building formula just doesn't work for depicting modern conflicts, and if they changed the formula to suit, then it would be a different game from the rest, not recognizable as an AoE game.
>For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield, so resource gathering would have to occur in different ways. You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle
Why? Why is it fine to do that in an old timey game?
It's explained in the post.
>you would have conscripts doing all that backbreaking work
No, you wouldn't have conscripts mine gold and farm food in the battlefield, not sure what you're talking about. I didn't read the rest of the post.
>I didn't read the rest of the post.
you can cope however you want, it doesn't dismiss or justify your awful takes on game design. It's a good thing you're not in charge of any games and your say has no value in the real world.
>For a 20th century game, you wouldn't have civilians mining gold and chopping trees in the battlefield
that's right, you would have conscripts doing all that backbreaking work
>You wouldn't have soldiers be recruited and trained at the location of a battle
as opposed to AoE2 and 3's spawning from thin air? Why are you complicating issues solved decades ago? You can totally have a military drill field near the frontline, that's literally what ukies do right now to get conscripts accustomed to the sound of artillery fire
>Already, this would be a completely different game from the rest of the series.
no, you're just making up problems that don't exist
>Take AoE 3, for example. There's a reason they chose to set it in the new world and not Europe. The only way they could have made the formula work believably is to make it about settlers establishing colonies in uncharted territory.
...because colonial era Europe was basically all Manhattan and skyscrapers by that point? What is the point you're trying to make here? They made colonial nations so they could have the home capital card gimmick.
AoE2 has aztec eagle warriors going up against polish winged hussars. I guess the game doesn't exist because logically it doesn't make sense for this encounter to happen, and we can't have that in a video game!!! Everything MUST be logical, WHAT do they eat????????
>The AoE base building formula just doesn't work for depicting modern conflicts, and if they changed the formula to suit, then it would be a different game from the rest, not recognizable as an AoE game
pic related.
Awful, just awful takes all around.
this soiwars game is a proof that aoe gameplay doesn't work in modern+ periods
It's good that they abandoned this cringe idea from OP
it doesn't work so much they actually made an expansion for it! AND SOLD IT! Kek! What a bunch of morons, if only they listened to Gankereddit squad complete with sentence spacing...
>soiwars
>From back when Lucas owned the rights to the series.
Awful post.
We already have the 00s takes on modern periods like RoN and EE. If that's what you want, play that. They are shit in the 20th century though, good luck.
Yes, rock paper scissors already struggles in its most ideal setting. Actually play Empires DotMW, it's much worse.
Excellent post.
Cossacks does "build your base and train your troops" just fine.
I think the formula struggles for anything post WW1, but as long as you begin the game in the early 1800's, just give the player a couple houses and a mill in addition to the starting town center and boom, you are starting with an existing "town"
Did they really take it from us if he ended up making EE which is pretty much exactly that?
yes because EE fricking sucked
EE 1 was really good, if only someone could fix the Ai. There is another game that is the spiritual sucessor, but i didn't get any desire to play, even forgot the name...
AoE4 should have been from Napoleonic Wars through WW1.
If they did that instead of aoe2 2 maybe I would have paid for the game. Relic are clearly a bunch of coward homosexuals.
I will never forget the brave sacrifice of Ensemble to save us from modern era RTS slop
I would have played a WW2 era Age of Empires, I guess it would have been like Company of Heroes but with more base building and trading
>AoE games
>worst parts of any RTS game rolled into one game
>paired with modern DLC whoring to match any CA game
I still can't see why anyone thinks this trash is any good.
parts of any RTS game rolled into one game
elabor8
Any games for this feel?
Empire Earth