AoE4 Relic Entertainment interview now

[lordraphael]

Prbly noone talks about it because it is dwarfed by the number of (civilian) deaths inflicted by germany in that conflict.
Afaik it is mentioned in some (semi-modern) history books, cause I did read about it. Also maybe not too many schoolbooks chose to cover the aftermath of ww2 too closely.

And of course two wrongs do not make a right - but I am rather surprised how fast germany has been "forgiven" by the other countries in europe.

im not really surprised by it given the context of cold war. Also humans have a somewhat short memory. History is full of examples like. Surely on another scale. But the pattern is always the same. France was incorporated within the european power system almost instantly after occupying all of europe during the napoleonic era. pragmatic reasons usually to strong. Also how do you hold an entire nation responsible for decades, im not entirely sure what you have in mind, but you simply cant. Human rights forbid it. So yeah was germany forgiven "easily" or "fast " ? Probably, but it also was a necessity and it surely didint come out of the goodness of the other nations hearts but mainly for pragmatic reasons.

[duckzilla]

Relic Entertainment does an interview on AoE4 --> I note inconsistencies in civilization naming --> ??? --> World War 2

classic

On a more serious note: very few people have an actual understanding of the scale of atrocities that happened in Central and Eastern Europe during the first half of the 20th century. That Germany was "forgiven" so easily might also have to do with the fact that the worst atrocities happened in the area behind the Iron Curtain from a Western perspective. These areas belonged to the enemy anyway. The Russian perspective is a bit more complex, but Russia itself was far less affected than Poland/Belarus/Ukraine. It is these three countries that bore the brunt of WW2, with Belarus losing a quarter of its population, and these three countries were further dominated by the USSR in the aftermath. They were pretty much forced to "forgive" the Germans in the German Democratic Republic, since it became a satellite state of the USSR, too.

[RefluxSemantic]

WW2 seems like a more relevant topic of discussion than the fact that a game isn't a documentary.

[Dolan]

A game like AOE3 but with WW2 content would have been a lot more interesting than an AOE2 rehash tbh. But not something that looks like CoD, more like CoH, but with AOE3 mechanics. I'd play that.

[RefluxSemantic]

I think a game like aoe3 set in a ww2 era would be atrocious, because effectively none of the elements of age of empires carry over properly to that era.

That being said, an RTS in the sort of aoe/sc style set in that era would be cool. But that's just because I like RTS games.

[Dolan]

Why. When most of the meta in AOE3 revolves around gundpowder units, I don't see what much of a difference would make if you had no melee units.
Actually if it included the late 19th century period and WW1, we could still have cav and some melee units that can fight with a bayonet.
I'd definitely like having fighter jets in such a game, since it would make micro more challenging when you need to control both units on land and some squadron of fighter jets that fly above a base.

[RefluxSemantic]

I see more problems with the style of economy. Don't see how you can carry that core part of aoe identity over and actually make a good modern era game.

[princeofcarthage]

A game like AOE3 but with WW2 content would have been a lot more interesting than an AOE2 rehash tbh. But not something that looks like CoD, more like CoH, but with AOE3 mechanics. I'd play that.

It's called Rise of Nations

[Dolan]

Add some new resource like oil which could be harvested from some areas, just like gold is mined from a small area of mineral formations. And instead of mining gold and wood, you could mine metal ores.
Food could be kept in the game, but maybe it could be gathered in more industrial ways (farming, fishing, cultures). A new mechanic of building trenches could replace walls.
I was once in a team with another AOE3 modder and we tried to create such an expansion pack. It was fun to imagine how could a more modern AOE work.
Instead of having native TPs, we were considering adding local power groups, like mafia units.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yeah so then you're not making aoe4 but a new RTS. Still cool, but I don't see how it relates much to aoe anymore.

[Dolan]

Similar mechanics, natural maps, similar isometric perspective on the map, an economy made of natural resources, medium-to-small maps, having main civs and minor civs that you could ally with, maybe even trading routes could be included too.

[RefluxSemantic]

You're just describing RTS games now

[Dolan]

Historical game about the fate of civs and empires. Euro empires were finished at the end of WW1, so there's still an unexplored period of time between the French Revolution and WW1.
A new AOE could cover that.

[scarm]

Technically AoE 3 does cover that period. The game gives us some hints to infer what years correspond with which age and the age up of Japan with the Meiji restauration for example means that we can guess that the Imperial age starts at about 1850 (1868). But yeah an AoE game focussed on specifically that time period and the european continent could have been fun.

[princeofcarthage]

Pls google Rise of Nations

[scarm]

I personally never quite liked games in which you progressed from ancient times to modern times. Usually you just rush through half the game and most periods lack depth for the sake of including all of them.

[Astaroth]

I personally never quite liked games in which you progressed from ancient times to modern times. Usually you just rush through half the game and most periods lack depth for the sake of including all of them.

Totally agree. The massive differences between the ages mean that you essentially can't "enjoy" or play out any one period (e.g. ancient times or middle ages) because you have to get to the next tech level so quickly.

It also breaks my suspension of disbelief to (at least potentially) see e.g. tanks fighting knights.

[Seamonk]

Technically AoE 3 does cover that period. The game gives us some hints to infer what years correspond with which age and the age up of Japan with the Meiji restauration for example means that we can guess that the Imperial age starts at about 1850 (1868). But yeah an AoE game focussed on specifically that time period and the european continent could have been fun.

AOE3 covers its time period in a... weird manner.
While the 1800s are represented, most civs do not resemble what they would look like in the 1800s. The british using longbows and not having access to light infantry with firearms is really weird. At a certain point, Europeans will have breach loaded rifles that will just outclass most other weapons.
The early game does not represent the 1500s either due to the musketeer unit. Musketeers/line infantry using bayonets didn't happen until the 1690s and kind of made pikemen obsolete. The 2nd age should really be full of push of pike and we can see unique units related to this with rodeleros, halberdiers, doppels, etc.

If I had a magic wand, I would change the time period so that the first age is an age of transition (1450 ish to 1521) and end the game with the conference of Vienna in 1815. I would move musketeers to the 3rd age (or give them the bonus vs cav in the 3rd age) and replace xbows with arquebusiers. I would also remove most references to rifling with an exception for the British to have maybe a church card or something give them a batch of specialized rifle units. Rifles took forever to reload in this era, and were only used for hunting.

In my opinion, an Age4 that did not revisit any time period would be close to the Paradox Victoria games. Set it in the 1800s and end it with the first world war. This way you can have rifles as the main firearm for the time period, and you don't get too crazy with technological advances.

[Djigit]

I personally never quite liked games in which you progressed from ancient times to modern times. Usually you just rush through half the game and most periods lack depth for the sake of including all of them.

Totally agree. The massive differences between the ages mean that you essentially can't "enjoy" or play out any one period (e.g. ancient times or middle ages) because you have to get to the next tech level so quickly.

It also breaks my suspension of disbelief to (at least potentially) see e.g. tanks fighting knights.

Well nothing prevents RoN players to set their own conditions. Personally, I always pick a period made of a single or 2 successive ages.
But it is true the game lacks some depth, mainly due to its large number of civs.