What era for AOE IV?

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[AOEisLOVE_AOEisLIFE]

The entire era from 1850s to 1930s though is very rich in history and conflict as well. Assuming WWI didn't take place (it's a game after all) you could set something up in terms of colonialism. However that's quite close to what AOE3 did.

good thing there are heaps of conflicts nowadays too so our famous leaders make some content for AoE5 and AoE6 possible..

[Laurence Drake]

I don't think AOE can fit well into the modern era because the whole concept of building town centres, farms and building up a civilization doesn't work well in the context of a modern era where the whole world is developed at the starting point. It works well if you're starting from ancient times or colonial times, so maybe the scramble for africa could be a starting point. If you start in the modern era it wouldn't be a classic AOE game, it would be more like fighting over a battlefield and bulding bases instead of town centres, trying to control map resources and receiving reinforcements/resources from back home with a card type system.

There are more things they'll have to think through before developing the game. All previous Age games revolved around empires, but late 19th century - early 20th century colonialism is on its last feet. So, if they want to boldly go beyond that, the game can't revolve around the concept of "building your own empire". It might even need to be called differently: Age of Revolutions, Age of Modern something-something. But then if they change the name, this might disappoint or estrange previous fans, who would be expecting a sequel in the "Age of Empires" series. And "Age of Empires" is the current brand name.

Anyway, moving forward in time is unavoidable. The series has no future if they constrain themselves only to imperial/colonial historical periods. Sooner or later, they will have to make a modern "Age of" game.

I think that's why they decided to both make remastered versions of AOE1, 2 and 3 and a new Age game. If fans of the series are disappointed by AOE4, they can still fall back on playing their favourite game in an improved form.

Coming back to the modern AOE idea, I think it would be cool to have a new resource system, that would use more modern resources, like "oil", "electricity", "batteries", "food supplies", "minerals", "money" etc. Each would need new ways of gathering, so new mechanics would need to be learned.

The point I wanted to get at was that, even if there won't be "colonies" and "town centers" that you'd need to build, there could still be "headquarters" or "military bases" or "cities" that you'd have to build from scratch. Maybe different game modes, depending on which type of settlement/site you can build. So you could play a short/fast game of "Expedition" mode, in which you can only build military bases, but not HQs. Shipments could arrive either by air, water or land, depending on map layout or conditions. Helicopters could be used both for raiding and shipping.

Trench warfare could be a new game feature. You'd have to build trenches using resources, much like you'd build wooden/stone walls in previous AOE games.

The game mechanics based around explorers will be replaced by something else, I think. Could be "commander", "general/colonel", "leader" etc. Or they might go with more hero-type of units, like administrators, leaders, scientists.

Natives could be replaced by local paramilitary units or allies: resistance units, commando units, gypsy units, mafia dons etc.

This will be the most challenging "Age of" game to make. Lots of risks and opportunities come with moving forward in time. Or maybe they'll just play safe and only do the 19th century, the age of national liberation movements.

The game will centre on post-WW2 African de-colonisation and the struggle for supremacy in Rhodesia.

[Papist]

This is a difficult question to answer because one can envision a ton of different forces at work in the minds of the developers:

1. AoE3 already encompasses a chunk of the Victorian era, and there are other existing RTS titles for both the Victorian era and WW2 (Victoria: Total War and Company of Heroes respectively)

2. WW1 is an era that has gone largely unexplored in gaming over the past few years. However, there is a reason for that - it lacks the fast pace and action that characterized the eras RTS has traditionally explored. It's hard to imagine a WW1-themed AoE both true to the time period (slow-paced trench warfare) and fun to play

3. To date, AoE2 has been the most successful game in the series, so the devs might be tempted to opt for the tried and true: medieval warfare.

4. Making a Rise of Nations-style game that stretches across multiple eras might also be a possibility - it could potentially be a way to appease everyone. But then again, a game like that would likely not enjoy the depth and complexity AoE is known for (RoN is very simplistic next to AoE).

5. AoE4 could potentially take place after the world wars. The Cold War era has not been explored in an RTS since Command & Conquer, and there are no RTS games set in the present day to the best of my knowledge.

However, I think the people insisting the next AoE MUST to take place after the time period of AoE3 are wrong - AoEO and AoM both demonstrate that the developers will opt for what they think will be received the best, not the next logical step in a sequence.

[rickytickitembo]

I hope it doesn't get into airplane/ww1 era. Whenever I played Empire Earth would usually set the limit to Middle or Renaissance ages.

[pecelot]

There is a cool feature on CoH2's "ESO" that allows people to obs any game providing that the players ticked the obs option. https://www.coh2.org/news/25384/observer-mode-preview
I assume they will also implement Twitch to the new "ESO" like they did for the remastered RoN and CoH2.

Code: Select all

V o o b l y

[look]

For that much conversation, can come what you want, being well done, bringing diversity of strategies, graphics and good gameplay, is what matters

[momuuu]

I don't think AOE can fit well into the modern era because the whole concept of building town centres, farms and building up a civilization doesn't work well in the context of a modern era where the whole world is developed at the starting point. It works well if you're starting from ancient times or colonial times, so maybe the scramble for africa could be a starting point. If you start in the modern era it wouldn't be a classic AOE game, it would be more like fighting over a battlefield and bulding bases instead of town centres, trying to control map resources and receiving reinforcements/resources from back home with a card type system.

There are more things they'll have to think through before developing the game. All previous Age games revolved around empires, but late 19th century - early 20th century colonialism is on its last feet. So, if they want to boldly go beyond that, the game can't revolve around the concept of "building your own empire". It might even need to be called differently: Age of Revolutions, Age of Modern something-something. But then if they change the name, this might disappoint or estrange previous fans, who would be expecting a sequel in the "Age of Empires" series. And "Age of Empires" is the current brand name.

Anyway, moving forward in time is unavoidable. The series has no future if they constrain themselves only to imperial/colonial historical periods. Sooner or later, they will have to make a modern "Age of" game.

I think that's why they decided to both make remastered versions of AOE1, 2 and 3 and a new Age game. If fans of the series are disappointed by AOE4, they can still fall back on playing their favourite game in an improved form.

Coming back to the modern AOE idea, I think it would be cool to have a new resource system, that would use more modern resources, like "oil", "electricity", "batteries", "food supplies", "minerals", "money" etc. Each would need new ways of gathering, so new mechanics would need to be learned.

The point I wanted to get at was that, even if there won't be "colonies" and "town centers" that you'd need to build, there could still be "headquarters" or "military bases" or "cities" that you'd have to build from scratch. Maybe different game modes, depending on which type of settlement/site you can build. So you could play a short/fast game of "Expedition" mode, in which you can only build military bases, but not HQs. Shipments could arrive either by air, water or land, depending on map layout or conditions. Helicopters could be used both for raiding and shipping.

Trench warfare could be a new game feature. You'd have to build trenches using resources, much like you'd build wooden/stone walls in previous AOE games.

The game mechanics based around explorers will be replaced by something else, I think. Could be "commander", "general/colonel", "leader" etc. Or they might go with more hero-type of units, like administrators, leaders, scientists.

Natives could be replaced by local paramilitary units or allies: resistance units, commando units, gypsy units, mafia dons etc.

This will be the most challenging "Age of" game to make. Lots of risks and opportunities come with moving forward in time. Or maybe they'll just play safe and only do the 19th century, the age of national liberation movements.

its not an age of game anymore if you do what you say. You cant make age of empires in a modern era. Its just not possible. The starting out with a town center and then building up from ground with villagers, that gather resources for you and build your buildings and then aging up to advance in technology is just a core aoe thing. It made sense in aoe1, because empires literally started rising back then, then in aoe2 you go up from the dark ages where there was a brief period without empires and then in aoe3 they cleverly use the new world to keep the aoe concept. I just don't see how theres anything that can save this concept in a modern age aoe. I mean, it makes no sense to start with some sort of town center and then start using villagers or shit to build an empire while in historic context everything was set up back then and most stuff was automatized.

Also, I don't think Relic would want to make a game that directly competes with one of their best games, Company of Heroes 2. That makes little sense to me. If anything, the RTS genre is missing an RTS game in the medieval era (not counting the super old aoe2).

[lordraphael]

zero empires, who aparently had known that aoe was going to be announced, 6 months before the announcement, said that he doesnt believe in a modern era aoe 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxOcRybNgQg

[HUMMAN]

Actually according to an article i've read long time ago, Aoe3 was not supposed to be sequel; an aoe game like aom; dont remember the name but maybe age of colonization. But because of marketing microsoft decided it should be called aoe3.
About modern erea thing, yeah it looks really hard there should be an idea really imaginative. Of course it cant be a town center which is popping vills then making units...

It may be adapted but as i said risky and hard. Instead of tc, there may be a head quarters which pops out officers which creates money and stability in symbolic towns(towns arorun map like coin mine which can be contested) which can be used for tech and army; oils supply cars it needs new parameters we are not used to.

Actually i am not hyped for the game since i dont find microsoft sincere in any aspect. They just try to milk money and use the name of aoe for it.

[Dolan]

I just don't see how theres anything that can save this concept in a modern age aoe. I mean, it makes no sense to start with some sort of town center and then start using villagers or shit to build an empire while in historic context everything was set up back then and most stuff was automatized.

Both the medieval period and the classical period had already-built cities. And yet, when they went to war, they needed to build outposts, raxes, stables, command centers from scratch wherever there was a military front. This hasn't really changed much even today. Do you think the Allied forces live in the cities in Afghanistan? No, they build their own military camps.

So, just as in AOE3 you had the starting TC that was sent with an explorer overseas as part of a colonial expedition, you could have a military expedition sent by a country to a certain territory (Americans being dispatched to Europe on a WW2 mission, Russians being sent to "liberate" Afghanistan, etc). This starting settlement could be called in many ways: "command center", "headquarters", "base".

I don't think Relic would want to make a game that directly competes with one of their best games, Company of Heroes 2.

Yeah, but COH2 came out in 2013. Its sales peaked a long time ago, nobody, not even Relic expects to get a significant revenue from a 2013 game. They would obviously invest most of their effort in the next big title, because that's where the big contract and money are. They're not gonna tell Microsoft to shove it, just because they can't make a game that would compete with another title they made 4 years ago. But anyway, it's not going to be COH3, because COH games are different in many ways from AOE games. Or maybe Relic doesn't really want the COH series to continue and they'd rather move on to being Microsoft's developer of Age games.

the RTS genre is missing an RTS game in the medieval era (not counting the super old aoe2).

Why not count AOE2 too, which will have two remastered versions by then: AOE2 HD and AOE2 DE. And, tbh, this medieval RTS genre has been exploited to death. How many medieval RTSes can you make within the same franchise? Ten? Twenty five? Where is the AOE series headed to, if it can only do medieval games? Can't this game move on to other ages already? Why is everyone so afraid of change and challenges? AOM proved you can make an "Age of" game that doesn't have to be realistic or historical. Is LoL realistic or historical? And look at how successful it is. Dota? Starcraft?

But anyway, I'm not that optimistic about what Microsoft/Relic will do with AOE4: I'd give it 65% chances of failure/disappointment and 35% of success. It probably depends more on how much talent Relic has and how much leeway they have in terms of time and money. AOE3 took three years to make and it wasn't even made from scratch, it used the engine already developed for AOM. So, if precedent has anything to teach us is that good games take time to make.

Personally, I have more hopes for AOE3 DE to fix what's wrong with the current state of AOE3, so it becomes a playable game again. If only they fixed lag and nothing else, that'd be enough for me to come back. Anything else would be a bonus.

[Djigit]

In my opinion, it will include both Victorian era and WW1.

I suppose tanks would be similar to bombards/hc/rockets in that they'd be only available in the latest age, produced in factories or sent from Homecity...if they keep the HC system.

Probably same thing for semi-automatic rifles. In early ages, infantrymen using bolt action rifles would allow H&R.

Still looks like Age of Empires to me.

[Asateo]

I agree, WWI warfare is still alot like AOE3. Aircrafts in the beginning just dropped by hand. Tanks only came in the end, use of baillonets,...

Only the TC system would seem weird.

[Laurence Drake]

I agree, WWI warfare is still alot like AOE3. Aircrafts in the beginning just dropped by hand. Tanks only came in the beginning, use of baillonets,...

Only the TC system would seem weird.

no need when we already have battlefield 1

[P i k i l i c]

Well you see needle gunners in age IV in Age of Empires III, so Age of Empires IV should not stay too long in the "Victorian Era" imo. But then it seems unlikely late WW1 to be the last age of the game, and I don't think you can play WW2 in an Age of Empires game

[CelticCrusader]

None of the above.

The trailer is ambiguous. But I am hoping it means Aoe1 to aoe3 era.

This is what I was thinking, it would be like a rise of nations or empire earth timescale over a long period

[yoqpasa]

I agree, WWI warfare is still alot like AOE3. Aircrafts in the beginning just dropped by hand. Tanks only came in the end, use of baillonets,...

Only the TC system would seem weird.

WWI is well known as trench war. How can trenches fit in AOE dynamic?

[BrookG]

The signs show 1890-1950: trailer, history of AoE, remasterings and the company's previous titles. Hopefully, the good stuff from all ages is in the game.

Very specific, indeed

Modernism era starts roughly from 1890 and in 1950 ww2 had ended :)

[Laurence Drake]

None of the above.

The trailer is ambiguous. But I am hoping it means Aoe1 to aoe3 era.

This is what I was thinking, it would be like a rise of nations or empire earth timescale over a long period

It will be a global conflict game focused on post-Brexit colonialism.

[CelticCrusader]

None of the above.

The trailer is ambiguous. But I am hoping it means Aoe1 to aoe3 era.

This is what I was thinking, it would be like a rise of nations or empire earth timescale over a long period

It will be a global conflict game focused on post-Brexit colonialism.

Lol ok Troll boy . So obsessed with brexit still .

[Papist]

Lol ok Troll boy . So obsessed with brexit still .

You rightly called him a troll...and then took his bait.

Gamescom was so AoE2-centric that I have hard time believing the Age series is suddenly going to plunge into the modern era. A lot of people threw a fit when the game went into the colonial era; I can't even imagine how they would react if it went into the industrial era.

[pecelot]

I agree, WWI warfare is still alot like AOE3. Aircrafts in the beginning just dropped by hand. Tanks only came in the end, use of baillonets,...

Only the TC system would seem weird.

WWI is well known as trench war. How can trenches fit in AOE dynamic?

By taking the eastern front into account, too!

The signs show 1890-1950: trailer, history of AoE, remasterings and the company's previous titles. Hopefully, the good stuff from all ages is in the game.

Very specific, indeed

Modernism era starts roughly from 1890 and in 1950 ww2 had ended :)

That was regarding the poll options Other than that, +/– 5 years, agreed

[BrookG]

@pecelot tbh based on the ageing up mechanic, most of the eras would be covered.

[CelticCrusader]

Lol ok Troll boy . So obsessed with brexit still .

You rightly called him a troll...and then took his bait.

Gamescom was so AoE2-centric that I have hard time believing the Age series is suddenly going to plunge into the modern era. A lot of people threw a fit when the game went into the colonial era; I can't even imagine how they would react if it went into the industrial era.

Your right, hes a troll and I took the bait. Your right this show felt very aoe2 orientated, it would be nice to have some aoe3 pros on the show too. Your also right that plunging the age series into the modern era is a bad idea. I hope for something in the current age series timescale anything that goes into the ww1 ww2 and beyond will not feel like age game to me. Who knows what will happen, we will see.

[Garja]

Medieval era gets boring. Colonial era has way more charm. Also rifles are funnier to micro. Only good thing for gameplay of mediaval era is archers > infantry > cav > archers