dietschlander wrote:^I believe you guys even had plans to annex souther parts of NL earlie ~1900.
I didn't know that.
Anyway, we probably wanted to safe the catholic dutchies from the evil protestants. We were quit keen on Rome back then.
Luckely that's over now.
To see a world in a grain of saind, A heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of you hand, And eternity in an hour
- William Blake, Auguries of Innocence
dietschlander wrote:^I believe you guys even had plans to annex souther parts of NL earlie ~1900.
I didn't know that.
Anyway, we probably wanted to safe the catholic dutchies from the evil protestants. We were quit keen on Rome back then.
Luckely that's over now.
europe history is interesting.
Portugal king decided to run away from napoleon, landed here, after a while his family didnt want to come home so they declared brazil's independence. gg no re.
what amazing history of conquest and freedom, i'm sure aoe4 will be about this saga.
dietschlander wrote:^I believe you guys even had plans to annex souther parts of NL earlie ~1900.
I didn't know that.
Anyway, we probably wanted to safe the catholic dutchies from the evil protestants. We were quit keen on Rome back then.
Luckely that's over now.
europe history is interesting.
Portugal king decided to run away from napoleon, landed here, after a while his family didnt want to come home so they declared brazil's independence. gg no re.
what amazing history of conquest and freedom, i'm sure aoe4 will be about this saga.
They just got caught in the lag and couldnt go back.
I go exploring the interwebs and there's way too much hate on aoe3 ... an insane amount of long ramblings by aoe2 players writing essays to Microsoft explaining why aoe3 is a failure and why they should make aoe2 version 2 instead. Half opinion, half incorrect facts.
My main worry is there is going to be a serious lack of innovation involved in aoe4 and it will just be aoe2 with very few changes. I'll be very sad if this is the case.
I go exploring the interwebs and there's way too much hate on aoe3 ... an insane amount of long ramblings by aoe2 players writing essays to Microsoft explaining why aoe3 is a failure and why they should make aoe2 version 2 instead. Half opinion, half incorrect facts.
My main worry is there is going to be a serious lack of innovation involved in aoe4 and it will just be aoe2 with very few changes. I'll be very sad if this is the case.
I agree with you here Wicked. A lot of hate for AoE 3 it seems.
Since Relic is making it and Company of Heroes 3 has been anticipated for a while now I have absolute certainty AOE4 will be terrible. Possibly worse than C&C 4 which effectively killed off the franchise including Red Alert. COH2 died some time ago and was inferior to COH1. Too much DLC, worse graphics, inefficient engine, no modding support.
I predict AOE4 will be WW1 era. There'll be no more settlers anymore. Instead there'll just be "builder units" probably called engineers. Homecities, ships and treasures will be gone too. Modding will be locked down completely also to maximise DLC $$$. Instead of gathering resources the economy will be heavily simplified having either control points or automated factories. What there will be in AOE4 will be tonnes of DLC, probably DLC civs, techs, units, graphics, skins, maps, extra resource and Pay2Win bonuses no doubt. Win 10 mandatory as well.
TAD AI Reference Guide "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
They can't take away the good old food/wood/gold/(stone) economy. That's AoE. It might become food/wood/metal or some shit, but yeah. It won't randomly turn into an action RTS or one with a simplified economy unless they are somehow extremely clueless about the wishes of their fanbase, which they have no excuse to be.
Goodspeed wrote:They can't take away the good old food/wood/gold/(stone) economy. That's AoE. It might become food/wood/metal or some shit, but yeah. It won't randomly turn into an action RTS or one with a simplified economy unless they are somehow extremely clueless about the wishes of their fanbase, which they have no excuse to be.
Yes, but its relic. I barely looked at Dawn of War 2 let alone 3. All games are pretty different. >:(
Goodspeed wrote:They can't take away the good old food/wood/gold/(stone) economy. That's AoE. It might become food/wood/metal or some shit, but yeah. It won't randomly turn into an action RTS or one with a simplified economy unless they are somehow extremely clueless about the wishes of their fanbase, which they have no excuse to be.
Yes, but its relic. I barely looked at Dawn of War 2 let alone 3. All games are pretty different. >:(
Considering how valuable the age franchise is there will be certain oversight from MS or at the very least certain concept designs relic have to adhere to. It's not just now they have the contract relic can do whatever they want.
Panmaster wrote:Since Relic is making it and Company of Heroes 3 has been anticipated for a while now I have absolute certainty AOE4 will be terrible. Possibly worse than C&C 4 which effectively killed off the franchise including Red Alert. COH2 died some time ago and was inferior to COH1. Too much DLC, worse graphics, inefficient engine, no modding support.
I predict AOE4 will be WW1 era. There'll be no more settlers anymore. Instead there'll just be "builder units" probably called engineers. Homecities, ships and treasures will be gone too. Modding will be locked down completely also to maximise DLC $$$. Instead of gathering resources the economy will be heavily simplified having either control points or automated factories. What there will be in AOE4 will be tonnes of DLC, probably DLC civs, techs, units, graphics, skins, maps, extra resource and Pay2Win bonuses no doubt. Win 10 mandatory as well.
OR, since the majority of the age of empires community liked the whole ancient/medival/sword fight/castle/no machine gun setting and already disliked the "theme" of AoE3, they will produce a game in a setting that will actually sell.
AOEisLOVE_AOEisLIFE wrote:OR, since the majority of the age of empires community liked the whole ancient/medival/sword fight/castle/no machine gun setting and already disliked the "theme" of AoE3, they will produce a game in a setting that will actually sell.
The evidence all points to WW1/2: Bruce Shelley mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iloaoh94a1U world war era near the end since it's what Relic is known for, Ensemble Studios artwork depicting WW1/2 for a 4th game, Relic make world war 2 games and COH 3 was due to come out. Either way it'll be awful especially if they listen to the vocal minority that hated AOE3.
TAD AI Reference Guide "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
AOEisLOVE_AOEisLIFE wrote:OR, since the majority of the age of empires community liked the whole ancient/medival/sword fight/castle/no machine gun setting and already disliked the "theme" of AoE3, they will produce a game in a setting that will actually sell.
The evidence all points to WW1/2: Bruce Shelley mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iloaoh94a1U world war era near the end since it's what Relic is known for, Ensemble Studios artwork depicting WW1/2 for a 4th game, Relic make world war 2 games and COH 3 was due to come out. Either way it'll be awful especially if they listen to the vocal minority that hated AOE3.
hey dude, thought you should know that the pound has stabilised!
Well, it shows that not even Ensemble, the original maker of AoE, believed you could do medieval-themed RTSes for ever. At some point, you have to move on, break the mold.
my point was that microsoft might choose a medieval scenario because it might sell a lot better than another world war RTS, i know that the logical follow-up of the series would be a 19th-20th century setting, but in the end they want to give the fans what they want + have high sales, right?
personally i wouldnt even mind a WW1/2 RTS, CoH was an awesome strategy game with the best micro options i have ever seen in any game, the only reason i came back to AoE3 was the (incredible) high amount of cheaters in CoH..
Difference between CoH and AoE is not the time period; they are vastly different games. I think the distinction is generally described as "action RTS" as opposed to "base building RTS". I disliked CoH because it focuses too much on battle tactics over economy, not because it has tanks instead of catapults. I'm sure you could make a perfectly playable base building RTS with 21st century weapons and a 4-resource economy, though it would be even harder to get it right because you'd probably need to make some counter-intuitive decisions. Villagers would seem out of place, for example, but are necessary if you want that AoE feel. But if they make an action RTS that would be a straight up betrayal to their fan base. I don't think MS will allow Relic to do that, even if Relic might want to.
kami_ryu wrote:Villagers make sense in the sort of older time-sets because supply lines were a lot shorter. After we figured out internal combustion engines, supply lines in warfare got a lot bigger. Mechanization meant that war was fought over large expanses of territory. Hitting the enemy's economy meant bombers hitting stuff way behind the actual front line. It's a little different from the old days, I guess, when Hannibal would plow salt into Roman fields.
Also AOE has that empire-building feel to it. WW1 and beyond you don't really have that, you have a more empire-destroying feel to the world.
yeah but people were still building their empires after ww1
lemmings121 
WickedCossack 
Laurence Drake 
_NiceKING_ 
NyxAchlys9 
AOEisLOVE_AOEisLIFE 
Mr_Bramboy 
