Lukas_L99 wrote:Goodspeed wrote:I saw someone say there is less unit diversity in AoE2. There is actually much more unit diversity. In AoE3 there are a couple of unit types and they counter each other and that's it. Every "unique" unit falls into one of those types, example ruyters who are just goons. AoE2's unique units on the other hand are actually unique and fill very specific roles. The only civ where AoE3 did this right is Aztecs.
I think it's mostly that AoE2 was more daring in which stats they were willing to mess with. For example range, speed and rate of fire, which in AoE3 are pretty much a constant for each unit type, differ a lot in AoE2. Consider the slack EP got when we made abus guns shoot slower...
Still all civs have more or less the same units except for the few special units, that's pretty boring to me...
The "few special units" are frequently a core part of the civ's strategy, and are actually unique as opposed to the pretend-unique we see so often in AoE3. Britons have their ultimate late game insanely-high range longbows, Goths have their huskarls which are great at flooding the opponent, Indians have elephant archers which are like howdahs but slow and tanky to ranged fire. Etc. Most civs find use for their unique units, and in many cases they are vital towards a civ's success.
Another way AoE2 adds diversity is that the standard units differ a lot in strength between civs. There are civ bonuses like archers have +1 range, archers fire faster, cav have more hp, cav archers are cheaper, etc. There are also a lot of unit upgrades (tragically missing from your average AoE3 game, which features at most a cav combat card sent) which significantly change a unit and some civs will have access to, others not. So while a unit can look the same, it can feel quite different across civs. This as opposed to AoE3, where units look different but feel the same. Uhlans, hussars, and cuirassiers, while different units, fill the same role. They are just "the heavy cav unit" you make. AoE3 is very focused on its unit types and counters across types, much less on individual units. Almost every unit in AoE3 strictly fits a type, and fills the (often exact) same role as other units of that type. Actual unique units like howdahs still fit that one type, but they have extra range which have a very significant effect on how the unit can be used. This comes back to my earlier point which was that AoE2 was a lot more comfortable messing with stats like range, RoF, and speed and how important this is to unit diversity.
Also aztecs or mayans with onagers? C'mon :/
Balance before historical accuracy. I see your point but I get where they're coming from with that.
Gold and stone running out seems very bad to me. If games go late game you basically can only spam hussars/pikes/skirmishers for the rest of the game if it's 1v1 or make it lag with 100 carts on the map for a little gold income in team games...
I can see why that would bother you as a treaty player. It wouldn't be good in treaty because you wouldn't have access to any of the fun units in the ultra-late game which is where treaty games start off. But for non-treaty games it is great game design, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Games rarely go on so long that you are making pure trash (food/wood units), typically you reach a point where you realize your gold is running low and you need to start being very cost-efficient with your gold units. This adds an interesting dynamic to the game. It's also great that map control stays relevant even in later stages of the game, as access to gold becomes more and more important. It prevents the typical separation of the players' economies that you often see in AoE3. Stone, which is missing from AoE3 entirely, also serves that purpose.
In team games there is trade, yes. There is also the possibility of selling food/wood for gold in the market and there are relics, which can be game deciding in 1v1 and are another great way to force player interaction even in the boomiest of games.