What do you dislike about AoE3?

[spadel]

I dislike warships, map balance and ottos. Apart from that its the best game I ve ever played. Too bad it never had big sponsors, would ve loved to see more players like grunt.

[Garja]

Compared to other games, where villagers are cheaper, resource accessibility is pretty much granted for a while and there is in general more room to leverage on player skills, this game has close to zero possibility of comeback after you have been damaged economically early in the game.

there is so much potential for comebacks. You can get a big raid off, win a fight, have your opponent overcommit, or gradually get some vill kills and free army kills because of superior micro.

Yes if you lose your entire army for almost nothing in fortress you are probably dead, but thats the same in just about any strategy game I have played.

With the insane defenders advantage, the possibility of getting huge raids throughout the game and the ability to get cost effectiveness even if you are behind in army allows for quite a lot of comeback potential. Especially if you lost a few vills early on.

Nothing of this is realistic tho. If you get raided one vill in the first 5 minutes of the game in a mirror and dont catch the opponent cav you have essentially lost. If you lose lets say 5-10 musks out of 40 because of bad judgement chosing a battle youre done. If you for some reason are put on the backfoot without any compensation you can basically resign.
Compare it to SC2 where harvester count is way less important, there are many more units that counter each other, there are more techs and upgrades, there is more defender advantage, there is a winning condition that is independent from the unit count, there is no infinite resource so you cant ride an advantage forever, etc.

Or compare it to AOE2 where the start is slower and games are longer, defensive structures are stronger and you dont need as much map control as in aoe3.

In both cases there is just more room for player skills to emerge and turn the game in your favor.
AOE3 is a pretty straightforward game. The game could be perfectly balanced when it starts but as soon as one player gets a significant advantage its very hard to see it reversed.
[span]And the threshold to call it a significant advantage is quite small too.[/span]

[Good ol Ivan]

failed to join game/invalid IP adress

[zoom]

As a blanket statement that is just not true at all' sometimes they do, and sometimes they dont. The ability of taking an advantageous engagement to the point that it wins you the game is very much so real in AoE3 ?? even when playing at a gathererer deficit. The greater the gatherer deficit, however, the more unlikely it is to be the case, of course...

Id say the comeback potential is excellent. It is very much possible to consistently outmicro your opponent and the defenders advantage is sufficiently big enough to give you the opportunity to outmicro your opponent.

Of course some deficits are so large that you cant come back from them.

Compared to other games, where villagers are cheaper, resource accessibility is pretty much granted for a while and there is in general more room to leverage on player skills, this game has close to zero possibility of comeback after you have been damaged economically early in the game.

I absolutely agree with this, as Ive said all along. The point Im making is that this is counteracted to some extent by the tactical military victory potential which is much greater than with most other RTS-games.

[Aladdin]

I can't believe I forgot to mention the most annoying of all: the voice acting
this is supposed to be the English version what the HELL is "imeneso"

[Mimsy for President]

I can''t believe I forgot to mention the most annoying of all: the voice acting
this is supposed to be the English version what the HELL is "imeneso"

*I mean it so.

Early modern English.

[Good ol Ivan]

I cant believe I forgot to mention the most annoying of all: the voice acting
this is supposed to be the English version what the HELL is "imeneso"

*I mean it so.

Early modern English.

While I applaud their use of voice actors who could speak English from the 16th century for the English units, it always irked me when I heard other European units speak, as they clearly speak the contemporary, 21th century version of their respective language.
And since we are on the topic of discussing units voice acting, I will utilize the momentum for something that has puzzled me for several years: Is it just me or aztec units from vanilla (jaguar and eagle knights from the aztec trade post) sound... different from the units of the aztec civilization?
I suppose its foolish of me to expect anyone here to know nahuatl, so I wouldnt mind if no one present in this discussion can formulate a satisfactory answer to that question.

[pecelot]

Actually a lot of my hotkey related criticism refer to vanilla version. it seems that Asian Dynasties has hotkeys for "find all military", "set military gather point" hotkeys

Agree, I wanted to play some vanilla lately but its so freaking annoying that one cannot use many simple but necessary hotkeys such as explorer crackshot.
PS. you dont have to write 3 posts in a row ')

Is it just me or aztec units from vanilla (jaguar and eagle knights from the aztec trade post) sound... different from the units of the aztec civilization?

I suppose its foolish of me to expect anyone here to know nahuatl, so I wouldnt mind if no one present in this discussion can formulate a satisfactory answer to that question.

There is an Aztec civilization in AoE2 and I think AoE3 voices are based on them even though there were some for Aztec natives.

[momuuu]

there is so much potential for comebacks. You can get a big raid off, win a fight, have your opponent overcommit, or gradually get some vill kills and free army kills because of superior micro.

Yes if you lose your entire army for almost nothing in fortress you are probably dead, but thats the same in just about any strategy game I have played.

With the insane defenders advantage, the possibility of getting huge raids throughout the game and the ability to get cost effectiveness even if you are behind in army allows for quite a lot of comeback potential. Especially if you lost a few vills early on.

Nothing of this is realistic tho. If you get raided one vill in the first 5 minutes of the game in a mirror and dont catch the opponent cav you have essentially lost. If you lose lets say 5-10 musks out of 40 because of bad judgement chosing a battle youre done. If you for some reason are put on the backfoot without any compensation you can basically resign.?
Compare it to SC2 where harvester count is way less important, there are many more units that counter each other, there are more techs and upgrades, there is more defender advantage, there is a winning condition that is independent from the unit count, there is no infinite resource so you cant ride an advantage forever, etc.

Or compare it to AOE2 where the start is slower and games are longer, defensive structures are stronger and you dont need as much map control as in aoe3.

In both cases there is just more room for player skills to emerge and turn the game in your favor.
AOE3 is a pretty straightforward game. The game could be perfectly balanced when it starts but as soon as one player gets a significant advantage its very hard to see it reversed.
[span]And the threshold to call it a significant advantage is quite small too.[/span]

maybe it is me, but I see comebacks all the time in aoe3. Some disadvantages are always insurmountable, especially if your opponent is good, but losing two villagers early on isnt game for sure. After all, aoe3 economy doesnt really snowball as much as it does in other games like sc2.

If you lose 10 musks for free youve actually lost 25% of your army for nothing, that doesnt count as a small mistake. Being 10 musks behind isnt even unsurmountable: a good fight with mm and popping reinforcements can still easily win you the game. Aswell as getting some raids in.

It is not like comebacks are the norm. We call it an advantage for a reason, and often the advantage didnt come from nowhere: the other player is probably better. But comebacks are a real thing and I think the advantage switches around between players a couple of times in the average game.

Just watch soldier vs tibia, china vs germany on tibet if you dont believe that.

[_venox_]

Mirrors aren't the only matchups. In other matchups besides mirrors comebacks are quite frequent.

[zoom]

Nothing of this is realistic tho. If you get raided one vill in the first 5 minutes of the game in a mirror and dont catch the opponent cav you have essentially lost. If you lose lets say 5-10 musks out of 40 because of bad judgement chosing a battle youre done. If you for some reason are put on the backfoot without any compensation you can basically resign.
Compare it to SC2 where harvester count is way less important, there are many more units that counter each other, there are more techs and upgrades, there is more defender advantage, there is a winning condition that is independent from the unit count, there is no infinite resource so you cant ride an advantage forever, etc.

Or compare it to AOE2 where the start is slower and games are longer, defensive structures are stronger and you dont need as much map control as in aoe3.

In both cases there is just more room for player skills to emerge and turn the game in your favor.
AOE3 is a pretty straightforward game. The game could be perfectly balanced when it starts but as soon as one player gets a significant advantage its very hard to see it reversed.
[span]And the threshold to call it a significant advantage is quite small too.[/span]

maybe it is me, but I see comebacks all the time in aoe3. Some disadvantages are always insurmountable, especially if your opponent is good, but losing two villagers early on isnt game for sure. After all, aoe3 economy doesnt really snowball as much as it does in other games like sc2.

If you lose 10 musks for free youve actually lost 25% of your army for nothing, that doesnt count as a small mistake. Being 10 musks behind isnt even unsurmountable: a good fight with mm and popping reinforcements can still easily win you the game. Aswell as getting some raids in.

It is not like comebacks are the norm. We call it an advantage for a reason, and often the advantage didnt come from nowhere: the other player is probably better. But comebacks are a real thing and I think the advantage switches around between players a couple of times in the average game.

Just watch soldier vs tibia, china vs germany on tibet if you dont believe that.

Im not sure using a game where both players performed terribly as an example is a good idea.

[momuuu]

maybe it is me, but I see comebacks all the time in aoe3. Some disadvantages are always insurmountable, especially if your opponent is good, but losing two villagers early on isnt game for sure. After all, aoe3 economy doesnt really snowball as much as it does in other games like sc2.

If you lose 10 musks for free youve actually lost 25% of your army for nothing, that doesnt count as a small mistake. Being 10 musks behind isnt even unsurmountable: a good fight with mm and popping reinforcements can still easily win you the game. Aswell as getting some raids in.

It is not like comebacks are the norm. We call it an advantage for a reason, and often the advantage didnt come from nowhere: the other player is probably better. But comebacks are a real thing and I think the advantage switches around between players a couple of times in the average game.

Just watch soldier vs tibia, china vs germany on tibet if you dont believe that.

Im not sure using a game where both players performed terribly as an example is a good idea.

terribly, but potentially and probably better than you and me would. Were humans and mistakes are being made. If we are going to assume perfect play, comebacks cant exist in any game. The game just shows that even top players make enough mistakes to allow close back and forth games with tons of small comebacks.

[zoom]

Naw I would have REKT dat chick in a Chinese mirror playing like that.

[zoom]

Also, I don't think you get it still: Garja is saying you cannot make much of a comeback unless your opponent plays as fucking poorly as Soldier and Tibia did in that game. As such, using that game to support your argument is a terrible idea in turn.

[momuuu]

Also, I don''t think you get it still: Garja is saying you cannot make much of a comeback unless your opponent plays as fucking poorly as Soldier and Tibia did in that game. As such, using that game to support your argument is a terrible idea in turn.

the idea of an advantage is that you win if you dont make any big mistakes.

But in aoe3 there is the possibility to consistently outmicro your opponent and get back into the game.

[Garja]

Ye, you guys are using the naive argument of "people make mistakes" and "comebacks happen all the time", which is not true in the first place and besides that it's not even the point here.
I'm comparing this game with other popular RTS games and this one, objectively speaking, is way less forgiving on the initial small advantages, and at the same time doesn't have enough room for player skills to change that initial unbalance.

[zoom]

Ye, you guys are using the naive argument of "people make mistakes" and "comebacks happen all the time", which is not true in the first place and besides that it''s not even the point here.
I''m comparing this game with other popular RTS games and this one, objectively speaking, is way less forgiving on the initial small advantages, and at the same time doesn''t have enough room for player skills to change that initial unbalance.

I never used either of those arguments in particular, so that''s a bit unfair if partly directed at me. What I''m saying is that comebacks through tactical military victories are quite frequent without the opponent making any significant mistake(s).

[pecelot]

What I dislike more is that there is a nice history section in a game that is available only in single player mode. I would love to read some of these when I'm waiting in an empty room on ESO for a couple of minutes, it would be prety entertaining. ESO itself lacks many useful lobby options, just compare it to Voobly - little notifications etc.

[Mimsy for President]

What I dislike more is that there is a nice history section in a game that is available only in single player mode. I would love to read some of these when I''m waiting in an empty room on ESO for a couple of minutes, it would be prety entertaining. ESO itself lacks many useful lobby options, just compare it to Voobly - little notifications etc.

Heresy ! Kids would be too clever.

[spoiler]{Spoiler}
+1000[/spoiler]

[momuuu]

I looked for the history section on eso for a while after having read it once. Its really cool.

At least eso has the history facts popping up every once in a while.

[pecelot]

At least eso has the history facts popping up every once in a while.

Meh, the same facts pop out over and over again, it''s just boring and it''s basically rather trivia.

[momuuu]

At least eso has the history facts popping up every once in a while.

Meh, the same facts pop out over and over again, its just boring and its basically rather trivia.

arent facts just about the same as trivia? :p

Theyre not amazing, but it adds a bit too the flavour of eso.

[91]

I dislike the fact that it's impossible to join any game for probably the last hour