AoE 3 vs AoE 2
Go to page 1, 2  Next
 
   Forum Index -> NE Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Firestorm
NE Guard
NE Guard


Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Posts: 94
Location: Somewhere in the Balkans

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:17 pm    Post subject: AoE 3 vs AoE 2

Hello to everybody!

I opened this topic in order to compare AoE 2 and AoE 3 and talk about what we like from both games. Here we also can talk about what we dislike about AoE 3 and what we miss from AoE 2, so NE could try to restore the beauty of AoE 2 on this mod, well whenever it is possible Mr. Green
Most probably somebody else already opened a similar topic but the forum is so long, and I'm lazy to search on it. Also we do have an expansion of AoE 2 recently, the African Kingdoms Cool and we have yet to comment about it on this forum.

Well, I will go first and it will be a long post Devil


Gameplay wise
1. Well the first difference we all notice are the graphics. I consider the graphics of AoE2 alwful even on HD version. Also the graphics of AoE3 are outdated now they still are a lot better than AoE 2, especially considering the maps and its details.
2. Training units 1 by 1 on AoE 2 doesn't suit my style. I just hate it Mad AoE 3 did very well to introduce group training by 5 or 10 for some civilizations.
3. Regarding animations AoE 3 still held a significant advantage over AoE 2 which is very simplistic at most cases. The fire, gunpowder, smoke and building animations on the process of being constructed or destroyed are a lot better on AoE 3.
4. Regarding economy, I also don't like farms being exhausted and the lack of plantations in AoE2. Also I dislike the resource drop off buildings. Often I get lost at micro-managament. But I really do like the stone resource, trade ships, merchant caravans and a few economic features in AoE 2 that are missing on AoE 3.
5. Usually AoE 2 lacks special units like Settler Wagon or Heroes but this allows the game to be better balanced than AoE 3. While I don't care much about explorers, warchiefs or monks, I do like the fact of some unique traits of AoE 3, like French and Germans having better settlers, British having special houses (Manors) or Japanese having shrines that you usually don't find on AoE 2. All of this stuff regards civilizations boni and I like the variations of AoE 3.
6. Regarding XP and home cities, at first I liked a lot this feature on AoE 3. But it doesn't have much sense on AoE2 (they aren't about colonies). Also out of 148 HC cards you can choose at best 25 of them. I prefer to have less techs (148 are too many Embarassed ) and being able to research them at different buildings rather than using the HC. NE made several improvements at this matter, adding new techs at Arsenal, Market and especially introducing the University on AoE 3. Also I'm not a big fan of passive resources like XP or export.
7. Regarding agents and similar units, AoE 2 only used Priests with a beautiful feature, converitng enemy units. Well, I would like them to have more varied skins and a small train limit. In AoE 3 is impossible to make priests being able to convert enemy units, only about treasure guardians. Also I never appreciated the Spies on AoE3, a very poor design and feature in my opinion. Wars of Liberty mod tried to enhance them but as usual they made an overpowered unit with some strange abilities.
8. Regarding Trading Posts and mercenaries, AoE 2 missed both. In case of mercenaries, historically speaking the middle ages is not renowned about massive mercenary armies but they do existed. I'm not a fan of trade routes but I like a lot native sites on AoE 3. It is a good way to represent minor civilizations which AoE 2 sadly lacks Crying or Very sad
9. I like the Age up politicians on AoE 3 or the fact that the game do give you a choice, that you can't do on AoE 2. Also I like more the wonder functions of AoE 3 than AoE 2 who simply acts as AoE 3 trade monopoly and are a lot of harder to destroy.

Historically wise

1. AoE 2 features more than 20 civilizations from all the world (excluding Australia and Antarctida Smile ) and cover a timeline from around 450-500 to 1500-1550. AoE 3 uses a timeline from around 1450-1500 to around 1850. The problem is that on AoE3 timeline there were many developments that changed the history of humanity. Industry, medicine, warfare, sciences progressed so much on Europe and some other countries like USA but not as much on the rest of the world. These things gave the Europeans a great advantage compared to the rest of the world. So on AoE we have extreme unequal civilzations, like British, French, Dutch but also Sioux and Aztecs. ES tried to balance them but the thing got unhistorical.
2. The choice of civilizations of AoE 2 is quite good. Well, I don't like much the presence of Huns and Goths that by the 6th or 7th century disappeared or merged with other nations but the rest are good enough in my opinion. Also they do have cool architectonic styles. Also by the middle ages no country held an incredible technology advantage to the other. I mean if you exclude diseases and native american fear and mysticism regarding the Spanish and in case the conquistadores didn't have the luxury of gunpowder, the Aztecs and Incas could defeat the small armies of Cortez and Pisarro. So AoE 2 civilizations are more balanced between themselves compared to AoE 3 which tried to balance it through unhistorical features on which WoL tried to build up their own mod.
3. The campaigns of AoE 2 are cooler than those of AoE 3. I quite enjoyed them.
4. The military concept of AoE 2 with just a singe or at best two unique units isn't good. Also there are too few culture units like Camelry or Eagle Warriors. They need more variations.
_________________
The ones who thinks that the Age of Piracy is over are deluding themselves!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ande59
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 163
Location: Australia, "Down Under"

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:54 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
excluding Australia


*Cries* (I mean, yeah. There wasn't a medieval era in Australia)

Regarding Point 2: Training units 1 by 1.
In Star Craft 2 (SC2), they did it really well, I guess maybe because that game is a much faster pace considering there isn't an age-up mechanic. Training units 1 by 1 also slows down the game which, in turn, is one of the reasons why AoE2 games usually last longer (Supremacy games). It was an interesting mechanic in RTS games, and I think AoE3's multi-train ability was a large breakthrough.

What I quite liked about AoE2 was that it felt like a more relaxing RTS; it felt slower (it was slower), I tend to jump back to AoE2 from other RTS games; It's a nice break.

I have heard from players on both AoE games that AoE2 has a lot more players. Not sure if it's true, but if it is... I wonder why...? Confused I mean, after all, they made an AoE2 HD.
_________________
A Roman walks into a bar, holds up two fingers and says "Five beers please."

"German Uhlan spam is lame" -StrelletToIndustrial
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:49 pm    Post subject: Re: AoE 3 vs AoE 2

Quote:
NE could try to restore the beauty of AoE 2 on this mod, well whenever it is possible

Ah, you know, that's already what I'm doing behind closed curtains, but in another way I'm not going to reveal (copycats out there) Devil

In another way, kudos for opening such a topic. It actually has modding report potential, because it brings up a nice question about similarities, differences and the motivation behind design decisions.

Quote:
Gameplay wise
1. Well the first difference we all notice are the graphics. I consider the graphics of AoE2 alwful even on HD version. Also the graphics of AoE3 are outdated now they still are a lot better than AoE 2, especially considering the maps and its details.

Ah, graphics. Rolling Eyes Aesthetics matters.

Quote:
3. Regarding animations AoE 3 still held a significant advantage over AoE 2 which is very simplistic at most cases. The fire, gunpowder, smoke and building animations on the process of being constructed or destroyed are a lot better on AoE 3.

Bah, I dislike the destruction anims in AoE3. They reveal that the buildings are empty inside, which destroys the whole immersion for me. In the other AoEs they were a lot smarter and simply skipped this part, which works just fine, because it's meant to be abstract.

Quote:
4. Regarding economy, I also don't like farms being exhausted and the lack of plantations in AoE2. Also I dislike the resource drop off buildings. Often I get lost at micro-managament. But I really do like the stone resource, trade ships, merchant caravans and a few economic features in AoE 2 that are missing on AoE 3.

Hm, yes, stone is an iconic resource for AoE, but you only really needed it for walls and castles, which are not relevant in AoE3. It was a pure building resource and thus considered superflous, because wood is good enough (especially since maps and parallely tree count per map are smaller in AoE3).

Quote:
5. Usually AoE 2 lacks special units like Settler Wagon or Heroes but this allows the game to be better balanced than AoE 3. While I don't care much about explorers, warchiefs or monks, I do like the fact of some unique traits of AoE 3, like French and Germans having better settlers, British having special houses (Manors) or Japanese having shrines that you usually don't find on AoE 2. All of this stuff regards civilizations boni and I like the variations of AoE 3.

Yea, I feel like a compromise between AoE2 and AoE3 regarding the level and variation of uniqueness in civs would be a great deal. I found it very funny that the Portuguese Feitoria, that was only added in African Kingdoms, was the first and only unique building of a civ in all AoE2. lol And if this wouldn't have been enough, it's so obvious the idea was directly taken from AoE3's factories.

Quote:
6. Regarding XP and home cities, at first I liked a lot this feature on AoE 3. But it doesn't have much sense on AoE2 (they aren't about colonies).

Colonies do not require XP in general. ^^ It's just another resource gained in a way that is untypical for AoE, which feels natural to AoE3 though (after all these years).

Quote:
Also out of 148 HC cards you can choose at best 25 of them. I prefer to have less techs (148 are too many ) and being able to research them at different buildings rather than using the HC. NE made several improvements at this matter, adding new techs at Arsenal, Market and especially introducing the University on AoE 3. Also I'm not a big fan of passive resources like XP or export.

Yes, HCs can be smaller for real. It seems we got another research task. ^^

Quote:
7. Regarding agents and similar units, AoE 2 only used Priests with a beautiful feature, converitng enemy units. Well, I would like them to have more varied skins and a small train limit. In AoE 3 is impossible to make priests being able to convert enemy units, only about treasure guardians. Also I never appreciated the Spies on AoE3, a very poor design and feature in my opinion. Wars of Liberty mod tried to enhance them but as usual they made an overpowered unit with some strange abilities.

Ah, to be fair, regardless of the Monk being an iconic AoE unit and very useful only in very few multiplayer situations, its reputation is far bigger than its use. So it's a bit of a pity the conversion doesn't work, but it's not a big loss. I agree on spies partially, because do have a good use in the counter-system, even though the idea is a bit weird (why are Spies good vs. Mercs) and the unit itself looks ridiculous. I think I know which mod WotTA did incorporate for the Spy abilities (no surprise). It does add a bit of value, but makes the unit suffer from too much micro-management just like Explorer or even the AoE2 Monk. I agree on the Priest skins btw, they need new skins.

Quote:
8. Regarding Trading Posts and mercenaries, AoE 2 missed both. In case of mercenaries, historically speaking the middle ages is not renowned about massive mercenary armies but they do existed. I'm not a fan of trade routes but I like a lot native sites on AoE 3. It is a good way to represent minor civilizations which AoE 2 sadly lacks

Funnily, AoE2 actually had a Trading Post, but only in Scenario Editor. Which is why I assume it was already then considered as a feature at some point in the design process.

The natives are only cool until a certain skill level, because they are generally too weak. They are nice in treaty games though. Imagining AoE2 with natives or trade routes is a funny idea, but feels just wrong. I love TPs for some reason, idk, it does replace the AoE2 trade for me in quite satisfying way and gives the illusion of an useful investment in trade that pays off for real, but doesn't require annoying micro if market carts or coggs (which simply stopped moving all along a route once the target market was destroyed).

Mercenaries existed to all times, also in the European middle ages (and not too few). I don't really like mercs simply for having so overpowered stats. I've always hated the idea of superhumans in any context.


Quote:
9. I like the Age up politicians on AoE 3 or the fact that the game do give you a choice, that you can't do on AoE 2. Also I like more the wonder functions of AoE 3 than AoE 2 who simply acts as AoE 3 trade monopoly and are a lot of harder to destroy.

Wonder victory in AoE2 was indeed unpopular. I never played it often. I think the approach in AoE3 to give wonders a game use was good, but linking them to age-ups was a brave decision. It's a bit of a pity most other civs don't have wonders and admittedly it wouldn't be easy to find wonder buildings for some civs such as the Sioux or Iroquois. It seems ES decided wonders would be more of a thing for HCs (which you can see when you look at the Spanish HC for example, which features the Spanish AoE2 wonder).

Quote:
1. AoE 2 features more than 20 civilizations from all the world (excluding Australia and Antarctida ) and cover a timeline from around 450-500 to 1500-1550. AoE 3 uses a timeline from around 1450-1500 to around 1850. The problem is that on AoE3 timeline there were many developments that changed the history of humanity. Industry, medicine, warfare, sciences progressed so much on Europe and some other countries like USA but not as much on the rest of the world. These things gave the Europeans a great advantage compared to the rest of the world. So on AoE we have extreme unequal civilzations, like British, French, Dutch but also Sioux and Aztecs. ES tried to balance them but the thing got unhistorical.

Actually AoE2 also ignores North America, it's not like you couldn't have covered a few North American cultures like Pueblos or Mississippians when you already went for Mayans and Aztecs. Mr. Green (or you could still add more of the Meso-Americans) Things going ahistorical in AoE because of weird civ selections is definitely right.

Quote:
2. The choice of civilizations of AoE 2 is quite good. Well, I don't like much the presence of Huns and Goths that by the 6th or 7th century disappeared or merged with other nations but the rest are good enough in my opinion. Also they do have cool architectonic styles. Also by the middle ages no country held an incredible technology advantage to the other. I mean if you exclude diseases and native american fear and mysticism regarding the Spanish and in case the conquistadores didn't have the luxury of gunpowder, the Aztecs and Incas could defeat the small armies of Cortez and Pisarro. So AoE 2 civilizations are more balanced between themselves compared to AoE 3 which tried to balance it through unhistorical features on which WoL tried to build up their own mod.

I have to disagree on the qualitative selection of civs for AoE2 btw, it's far from being good. But then again ES had at all of their AoE games very questionable civ choices and incomplete civ sets. Hence, one may say, an update of the mod fittingly called "The Forgotten" was inevitable, because ES simply didn't do their homework (even though Bruce Shelley was always blessed for his 'extensive history researches' - ha ha). My favorite worst civ choices are the Palmyrans and Chosons in AoE1 (Palmyra existed only for 3 years and Chosons/Joseons are medieval Koreans) as well as the Teutons in AoE2 (Teutons are an ancient tribe and they failed to find a better term for the German Teutonic Order) and the Aztecs in AoE3 (who gives a fuck about timelines, right?!). Evil tongues would say that their ignorance for non-American history is one of the reasons why the AoE3 base game is only playing in America, since American history is the only thing in which they're really knowledgeable. Devil

Actually, you could do a new "The Forgotten" expansion for AoE3 as well and add civs such as the Danes, Swedes, Poles, Persians and Italians. Mr. Green ('urope FUCK YEAH! ROFL )

To come back to AoE2: The civ selection was very ... selective (uh). 450-1550 is a long time and there are many many deficits in regards of covering the most important civs (also nominally). Anyone who's played some Europa Universalis, Medieval II (with mods) or Age of Chivalry for AoE2 gets sets of civs presented that are very close to their historical examples. AoE civs are abstract at its best, come with bad names and are incomplete.

Quote:
3. The campaigns of AoE 2 are cooler than those of AoE 3. I quite enjoyed them.

Yeah, and when I played The Forgotten I realized once again how incredibly important the speakers were for creating that tense atmosphere.

Quote:
4. The military concept of AoE 2 with just a singe or at best two unique units isn't good. Also there are too few culture units like Camelry or Eagle Warriors. They need more variations.

Oh, I think Camel Riders were well-spread. They could have taken more use of Meso-Americans, that's true.
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Firestorm
NE Guard
NE Guard


Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Posts: 94
Location: Somewhere in the Balkans

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:20 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Bah, I dislike the destruction anims in AoE3. They reveal that the buildings are empty inside, which destroys the whole immersion for me. In the other AoEs they were a lot smarter and simply skipped this part, which works just fine, because it's meant to be abstract.

Remember that most AoE 2 units lacks siege attack animations. Also there are other units like Samurai who have better moves on AoE3. Even the way it dies looks better on AoE3.

Quote:
Hm, yes, stone is an iconic resource for AoE, but you only really needed it for walls and castles, which are not relevant in AoE3. It was a pure building resource and thus considered superflous, because wood is good enough (especially since maps and parallely tree count per map are smaller in AoE3).

Agree about the stone resource. But on a medieval mod this is quite important.

Quote:
The natives are only cool until a certain skill level, because they are generally too weak. They are nice in treaty games though. Imagining AoE2 with natives or trade routes is a funny idea, but feels just wrong.

During the middle ages the sense of nation wasn't the same as today. With natives I mean local powers who join their lord as vassals. Like Bohemian troops fighting for Barbarossa, or Welsh longbowmen fighting for Edward I. I prefer them over the mercenaries who just do it for money. In the middle ages mercenary warfare wasn't dominant like later times i.e Italian Wars, 30 Years War.


Quote:
Actually AoE2 also ignores North America, it's not like you couldn't have covered a few North American cultures like Pueblos or Mississippians when you already went for Mayans and Aztecs. Mr. Green (or you could still add more of the Meso-Americans) Things going ahistorical in AoE because of weird civ selections is definitely right.

Well, you can't compare the legacy of Aztecs or Mayans with Pueblo Tribes. Also a few more nations from uncovered geographical areas wouldn't be bad, especially for a game like AoE. In north America, the Iroquois could do the job and the legend of Hiawatha could be a good short campaign, even including a few fantasy features on AoM style. South America is also uncovered (just the Incas). Is hard to find a good candidate there. Maybe a civilization like WoL Tupi (Brazilian Natives) limited only on food and wood gathering could be interesting for AoE 2. As for the rest of the world, well there are several good choices, especially for Europe and Asia.


Quote:
Actually, you could do a new "The Forgotten" expansion for AoE3 as well and add civs such as the Danes, Swedes, Poles, Persians and Italians. Mr. Green ('urope FUCK YEAH! ROFL )

I bet that Microsoft Studios would rather use NE civilizations as an AoE 3 expansion rather than Brazil, Bulgaria or Australia Topmodel

Quote:
Oh, I think Camel Riders were well-spread. They could have taken more use of Meso-Americans, that's true.

They were just examples. Like they made skins for different building sets, they could do the same for military units. Like an east asian or middle eastern pikeman. Or some more shared units.

[quote]In another way, kudos for opening such a topic. It actually has modding report potential, because it brings up a nice question about similarities, differences and the motivation behind design decisions[quote]

Lets better focus on the next modding report as planned. Also agree the topic is worth to be discussed. Cool
_________________
The ones who thinks that the Age of Piracy is over are deluding themselves!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Makedonia
French Conscript
French Conscript


Joined: 11 Oct 2015
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:02 pm    Post subject:

The only thing I don't like in AOE3 is that units can't miss their shots. It would be a lot more fun if cannons could mess up and not hit their targets once in a while. It also makes volley firing more important too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yurashic
French Conscript
French Conscript


Joined: 21 Oct 2015
Posts: 23
Location: Russia

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:02 pm    Post subject:

It would have screwed the game badly and make it very luck based. If you are playing an Ottoman mirror, you both FF and send 2 falcs, it is all about the cannon duel. If someone randomly misses it is GG. Luck factor is not welcomed in a competitive RTS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Ande59
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 163
Location: Australia, "Down Under"

PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:14 am    Post subject:

Actually, Archers do occasionally miss, but that chance is very low (Longbowmen, Sioux/Iroquois archers, Japanese Yumi, etc).
_________________
A Roman walks into a bar, holds up two fingers and says "Five beers please."

"German Uhlan spam is lame" -StrelletToIndustrial
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pawelec_POLAND
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 156
Location: Poland

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:52 pm    Post subject:

This is a great thread idea.

I've already mentioned that the problem with AoE3 campaigns is their RPG approach to the gameplay. AoE2 offered, among many others, Fixed Force and Build'n'Destroy scenarios, with strong historical background. With complex trigger system of AoE3 this could be expanded even more.

HC shipments seem to be the most controversial difference between AoE2 and AoE3. For me it's very strange the reinforcements arrive at your Town Center. In Rise of Nations they arrive at the edge of the map, which is much more realistic and poses some interesting difficulties when you have to cross the map with your newly acquired troops.

AoE3 is way too much land oriented for my taste. The biggest flaw here is the lack of sea trade, which has been replaced with whaling. Coastal natives, who could be traded with using trade ships, would be a nice addition. They could also offer native ships and techs.

AoE2 trade routes are something I miss. If players had to send their own units to the factories and bring them back to TCs or Markets it would be much more interesting than waiting for the trade unit to arrive.10

I have more observations on the matter, but I'm quite short on time, math exam is coming...
_________________
"Let us return to the past; it will be progress."
by Giuseppe Verdi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The last Austriahungarian
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 01 Feb 2016
Posts: 159
Location: Brasil

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:25 am    Post subject: Re: AoE 3 vs AoE 2

Firestorm wrote:
Hello to everybody!

I opened this topic in order to compare AoE 2 and AoE 3 and talk about what we like from both games. Here we also can talk about what we dislike about AoE 3 and what we miss from AoE 2, so NE could try to restore the beauty of AoE 2 on this mod, well whenever it is possible Mr. Green
Most probably somebody else already opened a similar topic but the forum is so long, and I'm lazy to search on it. Also we do have an expansion of AoE 2 recently, the African Kingdoms Cool and we have yet to comment about it on this forum.

Well, I will go first and it will be a long post Devil


Gameplay wise
1. Well the first difference we all notice are the graphics. I consider the graphics of AoE2 alwful even on HD version. Also the graphics of AoE3 are outdated now they still are a lot better than AoE 2, especially considering the maps and its details.
2. Training units 1 by 1 on AoE 2 doesn't suit my style. I just hate it Mad AoE 3 did very well to introduce group training by 5 or 10 for some civilizations.
3. Regarding animations AoE 3 still held a significant advantage over AoE 2 which is very simplistic at most cases. The fire, gunpowder, smoke and building animations on the process of being constructed or destroyed are a lot better on AoE 3.
4. Regarding economy, I also don't like farms being exhausted and the lack of plantations in AoE2. Also I dislike the resource drop off buildings. Often I get lost at micro-managament. But I really do like the stone resource, trade ships, merchant caravans and a few economic features in AoE 2 that are missing on AoE 3.
5. Usually AoE 2 lacks special units like Settler Wagon or Heroes but this allows the game to be better balanced than AoE 3. While I don't care much about explorers, warchiefs or monks, I do like the fact of some unique traits of AoE 3, like French and Germans having better settlers, British having special houses (Manors) or Japanese having shrines that you usually don't find on AoE 2. All of this stuff regards civilizations boni and I like the variations of AoE 3.
6. Regarding XP and home cities, at first I liked a lot this feature on AoE 3. But it doesn't have much sense on AoE2 (they aren't about colonies). Also out of 148 HC cards you can choose at best 25 of them. I prefer to have less techs (148 are too many Embarassed ) and being able to research them at different buildings rather than using the HC. NE made several improvements at this matter, adding new techs at Arsenal, Market and especially introducing the University on AoE 3. Also I'm not a big fan of passive resources like XP or export.
7. Regarding agents and similar units, AoE 2 only used Priests with a beautiful feature, converitng enemy units. Well, I would like them to have more varied skins and a small train limit. In AoE 3 is impossible to make priests being able to convert enemy units, only about treasure guardians. Also I never appreciated the Spies on AoE3, a very poor design and feature in my opinion. Wars of Liberty mod tried to enhance them but as usual they made an overpowered unit with some strange abilities.
8. Regarding Trading Posts and mercenaries, AoE 2 missed both. In case of mercenaries, historically speaking the middle ages is not renowned about massive mercenary armies but they do existed. I'm not a fan of trade routes but I like a lot native sites on AoE 3. It is a good way to represent minor civilizations which AoE 2 sadly lacks Crying or Very sad
9. I like the Age up politicians on AoE 3 or the fact that the game do give you a choice, that you can't do on AoE 2. Also I like more the wonder functions of AoE 3 than AoE 2 who simply acts as AoE 3 trade monopoly and are a lot of harder to destroy.

Historically wise

1. AoE 2 features more than 20 civilizations from all the world (excluding Australia and Antarctida Smile ) and cover a timeline from around 450-500 to 1500-1550. AoE 3 uses a timeline from around 1450-1500 to around 1850. The problem is that on AoE3 timeline there were many developments that changed the history of humanity. Industry, medicine, warfare, sciences progressed so much on Europe and some other countries like USA but not as much on the rest of the world. These things gave the Europeans a great advantage compared to the rest of the world. So on AoE we have extreme unequal civilzations, like British, French, Dutch but also Sioux and Aztecs. ES tried to balance them but the thing got unhistorical.
2. The choice of civilizations of AoE 2 is quite good. Well, I don't like much the presence of Huns and Goths that by the 6th or 7th century disappeared or merged with other nations but the rest are good enough in my opinion. Also they do have cool architectonic styles. Also by the middle ages no country held an incredible technology advantage to the other. I mean if you exclude diseases and native american fear and mysticism regarding the Spanish and in case the conquistadores didn't have the luxury of gunpowder, the Aztecs and Incas could defeat the small armies of Cortez and Pisarro. So AoE 2 civilizations are more balanced between themselves compared to AoE 3 which tried to balance it through unhistorical features on which WoL tried to build up their own mod.
3. The campaigns of AoE 2 are cooler than those of AoE 3. I quite enjoyed them.
4. The military concept of AoE 2 with just a singe or at best two unique units isn't good. Also there are too few culture units like Camelry or Eagle Warriors. They need more variations.


Aoe2 best aoe Cool EDIT: I MEANT AOE3 IS THE BEST. AOE2 SHIT Razz
_________________
A KING MUST BE GREEDIER!
A KING MUST LAUGH LOUDER!
A KING MUST BE MORE FURIOUS THAN EVERYONE ELSE!
HE MUST EXEMPLIFY THE EXTREME OF ALL THINGS, GOOD AND EVIL!
THAT IS WHY HIS RETAINERS ENVY AND ADORE HIM, AND WHY THE FLAMES OF ASPIRATION, TO BE AS THE KING IS, CAN BURN WITHIN
HIS PEOPLE!

I SHALL GRIEVE AND I SHALL WEEP, BUT I SHALL NEVER REGRET!
-Iskandar, king of conquerors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Girafarig
French Conscript
French Conscript


Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 25
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:01 am    Post subject:

Ande59 wrote:

I have heard from players on both AoE games that AoE2 has a lot more players. Not sure if it's true, but if it is... I wonder why...? Confused I mean, after all, they made an AoE2 HD.


Mostly the HC. People really disliked it, for a number of reasons. I like the HC, because it lets you customize your civ a bit, like in Empire Earth. But most people just wanna gather resources and rush you with cavalry five minutes into the game.

Truth is, AoE 2 was a very good game. It wasn't too complex nor too simple, it had a lot a variety yet it was fairly balanced, in that all civs had a moment and a place to shine.

AoE 3, on the other hand, wasn't as balanced – the Spanish and the Natives sucked (they still do in NE, I think) while the French were awesome, for example. There's also a steeper learning curve, with the HC but also with certain civs' gameplay. The Brits, Spanish and French play more or less straightforwardly, then you go thorugh the Indians with their wood-costing vills or the Russians with their batch villager training, straight to the sheer weirdness of the Ottoman villie-trickle system or the Native civs' boogie wonderland dancing pit. AoE 2's weirdest thing is the no-house Huns or the extra-villager Chinese – pretty simple by comparison.

Finally, and this is a personal appreciation: AoE 2 had Arabia as a standard map. 1v1 on Arabia was the biggest thing. It bored me out of my skull, but you had lots of people focused on honing their rushing skills with the Huns or the Mayans on this very specific map. I don't think AoE 3 had a similar situation, where you could confidently expect half of the available matches to be in a specific map and to see the same two or three civs regularly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pawelec_POLAND
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 156
Location: Poland

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:12 pm    Post subject:

Girafarig wrote:
Ande59 wrote:

I have heard from players on both AoE games that AoE2 has a lot more players. Not sure if it's true, but if it is... I wonder why...? Confused I mean, after all, they made an AoE2 HD.


Mostly the HC. People really disliked it, for a number of reasons. I like the HC, because it lets you customize your civ a bit, like in Empire Earth. But most people just wanna gather resources and rush you with cavalry five minutes into the game.

Truth is, AoE 2 was a very good game. It wasn't too complex nor too simple, it had a lot a variety yet it was fairly balanced, in that all civs had a moment and a place to shine.

AoE 3, on the other hand, wasn't as balanced – the Spanish and the Natives sucked (they still do in NE, I think) while the French were awesome, for example. There's also a steeper learning curve, with the HC but also with certain civs' gameplay. The Brits, Spanish and French play more or less straightforwardly, then you go thorugh the Indians with their wood-costing vills or the Russians with their batch villager training, straight to the sheer weirdness of the Ottoman villie-trickle system or the Native civs' boogie wonderland dancing pit. AoE 2's weirdest thing is the no-house Huns or the extra-villager Chinese – pretty simple by comparison.

Finally, and this is a personal appreciation: AoE 2 had Arabia as a standard map. 1v1 on Arabia was the biggest thing. It bored me out of my skull, but you had lots of people focused on honing their rushing skills with the Huns or the Mayans on this very specific map. I don't think AoE 3 had a similar situation, where you could confidently expect half of the available matches to be in a specific map and to see the same two or three civs regularly.
Girafarig has a point here, but it really surprises me how similarity of the civs can be seen as an advantage, it's a disadvantage for me and one of two major disadvantages of otherwise perfect Rise of Nations (the second being too wide time span). In AoE2 you have a bunch of strategies with civ-specific variations (modders of the Chivalry team seem to have spotted the problem). In AoE3 every civ has an array of its own strategies. The learning curve is steep but rewarding.
_________________
"Let us return to the past; it will be progress."
by Giuseppe Verdi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:14 pm    Post subject:

Girafarig wrote:
Truth is, AoE 2 was a very good game. It wasn't too complex nor too simple, it had a lot a variety yet it was fairly balanced, in that all civs had a moment and a place to shine.

Ah, it feels so good to read that. So true. Seriously, I get a bit desperate when AoE3 fans try to tell me AoE2 had a shitty balance. That's just soooo wrong. The simplicity was the key in AoE2 balance.

I've had a lengthy, seemingly endless debate (if I didn't stop) about this. One guy was glorifying asymmetric civ design (and thus balance) while I was kinda defending the symmetric design that is so characteristic for AoE1+2. I actually think both approaches have their pros and cons and mixing both properly will give you ideally most of the pros from both aspects. The other guy was kinda disagreeing and basically saying "asymmetric civ design/balance is always best" and kept on using some successful game designer's articles as a killer argument of some kind.

I think RoN is an interesting mention. It has streamlined civs, but the level to which they differ from each other is kinda right. I'm sorry Pawelec I took the opposite site of what you are thinking about this, but I know, understand and respect you have a weakness for upmost complexity. Mr. Green

I'm on your side regarding the timespan, even though I think that is somehow a central idea of the game just as it was in Empire Earth or Civilization. When it comes to historically themed games I think 300-500 years is a nice measure. It's long enough to address and feature historical twists and new remarkable, exciting developments and yet "short" (rather compact) enough for not having to make too many sacrifices or too much simplifications. Speedruns through the phases of human history are fun, but they lack authenticity and depth. Games built around only one major event like the crusades, american civil war, etc. mostly don't catch me for some reason.



AoE 3, on the other hand, wasn't as balanced – the Spanish and the Natives sucked (they still do in NE, I think) while the French were awesome, for example. There's also a steeper learning curve, with the HC but also with certain civs' gameplay. The Brits, Spanish and French play more or less straightforwardly, then you go thorugh the Indians with their wood-costing vills or the Russians with their batch villager training,


Quote:
straight to the sheer weirdness of the Ottoman villie-trickle system or the Native civs' boogie wonderland dancing pit

I lolled at this. lol

Quote:
AoE 2's weirdest thing is the no-house Huns or the extra-villager Chinese – pretty simple by comparison.

Yeah, right? So daring in terms of balance. Must have had a shitty balance this AoE2 Devil

Quote:
Finally, and this is a personal appreciation: AoE 2 had Arabia as a standard map. 1v1 on Arabia was the biggest thing. It bored me out of my skull, but you had lots of people focused on honing their rushing skills with the Huns or the Mayans on this very specific map. I don't think AoE 3 had a similar situation, where you could confidently expect half of the available matches to be in a specific map and to see the same two or three civs regularly.

Oh well, I think the AoE3 community was also pretty quick to find its evergreens. I hate to open ESO and only see games on Deccan. The Arabia of AoE3 in Nilla was definitely Great Plains. There are always mass tendencies towards to a handful of maps, civs and strats caused and shaped by the dominant meta gameplay. In GameRanger you tend to see other AoE2 maps being played, so I think yes, generally there's a bit more map variation in AoE3, but there are also maps I hate to see being played too often and others too less.
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:15 pm    Post subject:

Girafarig wrote:
Truth is, AoE 2 was a very good game. It wasn't too complex nor too simple, it had a lot a variety yet it was fairly balanced, in that all civs had a moment and a place to shine.

Ah, it feels so good to read that. So true. Seriously, I get a bit desperate when AoE3 fans try to tell me AoE2 had a shitty balance. That's just soooo wrong. The simplicity was the key in AoE2 balance.

I've had a lengthy, seemingly endless debate (if I didn't stop) about this. One guy was glorifying asymmetric civ design (and thus balance) while I was kinda defending the symmetric design that is so characteristic for AoE1+2. I actually think both approaches have their pros and cons and mixing both properly will give you ideally most of the pros from both aspects. The other guy was kinda disagreeing and basically saying "asymmetric civ design/balance is always best" and kept on using some successful game designer's articles as a killer argument of some kind.

I think RoN is an interesting mention. It has streamlined civs, but the level to which they differ from each other is kinda right. I'm sorry Pawelec I took the opposite site of what you are thinking about this, but I know, understand and respect you have a weakness for upmost complexity. Mr. Green I'm on your side regarding the timespan, even though I think that is somehow a central idea of the game just as it was in Empire Earth or Civilization.

When it comes to historically themed games I think 300-500 years is a nice measure. It's long enough to address and feature historical twists and new remarkable, exciting developments and yet "short" (rather compact) enough for not having to make too many sacrifices or too much simplifications. Speedruns through the phases of human history are fun, but they lack authenticity and depth. Games built around only one major event like the crusades, american civil war, etc. mostly don't catch me for some reason.

Quote:
AoE 3, on the other hand, wasn't as balanced – the Spanish and the Natives sucked (they still do in NE, I think) while the French were awesome, for example. There's also a steeper learning curve, with the HC but also with certain civs' gameplay. The Brits, Spanish and French play more or less straightforwardly, then you go thorugh the Indians with their wood-costing vills or the Russians with their batch villager training,

I agree AoE3 has its balance issues due to sometimes heavy asymmetric civ design. I think the natives in NE are a tad stronger than the AoE3 ones though.

Quote:
straight to the sheer weirdness of the Ottoman villie-trickle system or the Native civs' boogie wonderland dancing pit

I lolled at this. lol

Quote:
AoE 2's weirdest thing is the no-house Huns or the extra-villager Chinese – pretty simple by comparison.

Yeah, right? So daring in terms of balance. Must have had a shitty balance this AoE2 Devil

Quote:
Finally, and this is a personal appreciation: AoE 2 had Arabia as a standard map. 1v1 on Arabia was the biggest thing. It bored me out of my skull, but you had lots of people focused on honing their rushing skills with the Huns or the Mayans on this very specific map. I don't think AoE 3 had a similar situation, where you could confidently expect half of the available matches to be in a specific map and to see the same two or three civs regularly.

Oh well, I think the AoE3 community was also pretty quick to find its evergreens. I hate to open ESO and only see games on Deccan. I'm so sick of seeing this map, I almost puke. The Arabia of AoE3 in Nilla was definitely Great Plains. There are always mass tendencies towards to a handful of maps, civs and strats caused and shaped by the dominant meta gameplay, because people think the game with currently established playstyle works best on these maps. In GameRanger you tend to see other AoE2 maps being played, so I think yes, generally there's a bit more map variation in AoE3, but there are also maps I hate to see being played too often and others too less.
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Zooasaurus
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 16 Jan 2016
Posts: 161
Location: Indonesia

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:37 pm    Post subject:

The one thing that made me rarely played aoe2 and SHC series is the lack of variation in unit skins. I mean, japanese swordsman with longsword and plate armour... -.-'
Same goes with SHC, Arabian Sultan can build crusader units from barracks
_________________
Gib SSR plz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roy1012
Infantry Officer
Infantry Officer


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 1279
Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:29 pm    Post subject:

I'll edit this later however the main thing i don't like about AoE2 is the blandness of civilizations. Correct me if im wrong but almost everyone has the same units, except with different upgrades and you can get one unique unit from the castle. I like AoE3 for its diversity as well as NE's expansion upon that. I like how each civilization has 2-4 unique units. Thats just one thing, I'll edit/post something long when i have time.
_________________
Roy1012

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/RoySOTR

Feel free to add me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Girafarig
French Conscript
French Conscript


Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 25
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 2:43 am    Post subject:

Tilanus Commodor wrote:

I think RoN is an interesting mention. It has streamlined civs, but the level to which they differ from each other is kinda right.


I liked RoN, but I think it wasn't as balanced. There were a couple of great civs (I remember using the Iroquois and beating a guy through sheer tactical brilliance) and then you had ten or so civs that were meh. Like the Greeks, or the Ottomans.

Quote:
When it comes to historically themed games I think 300-500 years is a nice measure. It's long enough to address and feature historical twists and new remarkable, exciting developments and yet "short" (rather compact) enough for not having to make too many sacrifices or too much simplifications.


I think it depends on what 300-500 years. If you made a game of the last 300 years… well, picking off right from the middle of NE, all the way to the Cold War and beyond, it's quite a game (?).
On the other hand, the Middle Ages, despite being a whole millennium, are a nice fit for a game, since things changed very little in that time span, at least in Europe.

Quote:
I agree AoE3 has its balance issues due to sometimes heavy asymmetric civ design. I think the natives in NE are a tad stronger than the AoE3 ones though.


Really? I'd say the opposite. The natives got a couple techs to improve their trash units, while all European civs got like a gazillion new techs and HC card improvements.

Quote:
Oh well, I think the AoE3 community was also pretty quick to find its evergreens. I hate to open ESO and only see games on Deccan. I'm so sick of seeing this map, I almost puke. The Arabia of AoE3 in Nilla was definitely Great Plains. There are always mass tendencies towards to a handful of maps, civs and strats caused and shaped by the dominant meta gameplay, because people think the game with currently established playstyle works best on these maps. In GameRanger you tend to see other AoE2 maps being played, so I think yes, generally there's a bit more map variation in AoE3, but there are also maps I hate to see being played too often and others too less.


When I played AoE 3 online, back in 2008 or so… well, I played a lot of treaty games. But on the rare occasions I didn't have two hours of my life to piss off making janissaries galore, I think I played in Carolina as often as, or perhaps more than I played in Great Plains. I didn't have the expansions back then (and when I got them, I didn't care much for them – I guess I was used to 20 cards per deck and no wonders or dancing pits) so I didn't play Deccan at all.

Usually gameplay in the AoE series tends to open, waterless maps. I remember a time when merely asking for a Black Forest map in AoE 2 was a sure way to get branded as a noob. For some reason, people frown upon turtling, or they think it's a style of play only suited for new people. Which is a shame, because all AoE games have at least one or two defensive civs and those are the first ones to be dropped from online play. I mean, when was the last time you saw someone playing Teutons or Byzantines in Arabia 1v1?

roy1012 wrote:
I'll edit this later however the main thing i don't like about AoE2 is the blandness of civilizations. Correct me if im wrong but almost everyone has the same units, except with different upgrades and you can get one unique unit from the castle. I like AoE3 for its diversity as well as NE's expansion upon that. I like how each civilization has 2-4 unique units. Thats just one thing, I'll edit/post something long when i have time.


No, you're right. Well, unless you play as a native civ – they don't get cavalry and they get Eagle Warriors. And a few civs had two unique units.

The thing about AoE 2 was that, despite having more or less the same units, people usually went one way or another. Goths had decent heavy cavalry, for example, but they're best suited for infantry and you should expect to see hordes of infantry whenever facing them. And Koreans have a very good tech tree if you're going for a Spanish-style Tercio army (hand cannon, pikes and swordsmen) + bombard cannons, but try to pull that in a game and you'll get called a noob faster than you can say "wololo". It's all in the tech tree, really – an element that AoE 3 doesn't have because, barring certain HC cards' effects, all European civs get the same techs, for example.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> NE Forum All times are GMT
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group | Page design by Tilanus Commodor & michfrm.