What's aoe2 like?

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

jgals wrote:speaking of the "quality of life" issues that @Diarouga addresses why didn't they improve on that in HD/definitive? Seems like the first thing they should have done

As Ovi said that's because some guys like it. QoL issues make the game harder, and they don't want the game to be easier.
I'm not really close with the aoe2 community but I know than on broodwar (starcraft 1) they often criticize sc2 for being too easy because the units don't overkill, and you have all the hotkeys you could dream of. It's probably the same with aoe2.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

P i k i l i c wrote:AoE2 is great but slow and civs are not as different as they are in AoE3

As I said, it's slow only if you want it to be. You can rush quite early (if you consider real time not in game time), and I would argue that the game going into late game after a rush is actually a cool thing, even if the game lasts.
It's true that late game is very common in aoe2, but what matters is how you build it first. It's like a treaty game where you have to use strategy and mechanics to be ahead when the deciding fights happen, not just use the same 40 min build every game :lol:
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

I don't know why people are saying the game is slow. It's in AoE3 where I actually have the opportunity to get up and get a drink. I could never do that in AoE2. The first age is longer in AoE2 but it also requires a lot more attention and management. You don't just put your vills on food and move your explorer around, you:
- Build a house every 5 pop
- Scout for (and often with) sheep and boars that you need for your early food income
- Chop wood
- Build a mill and gather berries
- Bring deer to your TC (if you're good enough to do that, I sure as shit am not)
- Bring in boars for more efficient food gathering
- Build farms
- Start walling
So even if you age up 2 minutes later than in AoE3, age1 actually feels like a legitimate and necessary part of the game. In AoE3 it often feels like a bit of a drag to me, especially when playing Otto..

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. Most "unique" units fall 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...

And no, fast castle is not the only build. In AoE2 it differs a lot per map. There are maps where you want to start archers because map control is vital, there are maps where you want to start scouts to raid because it's unlikely your opponent was able to wall his entire base, and there are maps where you want to just eco castle because it's easy to wall your base and be safe from anything, or your base is even already walled (arena maps).
Games in general do go late game much more often, but this is okay because the differences in scaling are much smaller and gold is limited which is an interesting dynamic when it comes to deciding an army composition, and is also a great way for map control to stay relevant in later stages of the game.

Maps in general are much more diverse in AoE2 because this doesn't break balance. In AoE3, everything outside the norm is bound to significantly affect balance. I think the problem here is that in AoE3 there are very large differences in mid- and late-game scaling between the civs: Brit can have 40 vills by 6 minutes, where most other civs will have 25 max. On the other hand there are civs which get a significant amount more units out in the early game (Otto). If you make a map where for example Brit can boom safely, you broke balance. This isn't the case in AoE2 because there are no civs with extra boom capabilities or a large jump in military count in the early game. There are civs which boom a little easier (eg Brit, India) and civs that get more stuff in the early game (eg Mongols, Huns), but the balance is close enough that the best player will probably still win even when both are 2400+ and one civ is heavily favored based on the map. Balance between civs is more often about their unique unit and what access they have to techs and unit upgrades in the late game.

As for the quality of life issues, they don't strike me as issues after having played the game for a while. You get used to it and realize it has no negative impact on your experience (it doesn't on mine, anyway), it just increases the skill cap in a healthy way. I would even argue it makes it more rewarding to have set up a good economy and to be able to keep reinforcing fights. This as opposed to starcraft 1, where the QoL issues are so bad that overcoming them is the primary way to improve.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

Omg! I thought we were able to edit posts in this forum now. Mooooods
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

This was a somewhat recent and very entertaining series that actually didn't go late game much:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO9-fxN8enw
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: LĂĽbeck

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Lukas_L99 »

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... Also aztecs or mayans with onagers? C'mon :/

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...
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

@Goodspeed
Reduced ROF makes the unit more annoying to micro. That s why Abus change it is criticized.
+2 range is not big deal except that 18 range was abus unique feature (and with balance implications), so in this case your argument goes against you.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by EAGLEMUT »

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.


Really? Seems to me Mangudai are just cav archers, Janissaries are just hand cannoneers, etc. Most are about as unique as Ruyters or Zamburaks are vs goons.
Let's see what the AoE2 wiki itself has to say on how the unique Janissary unit plays. Quoting first sentence of the Tactics section here:
Janissaries play similarly to Hand Cannoneers, but with superior statistics.

:hmm:

Goodspeed wrote: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...
Ever heard of Ashigaru, Yumi, Camels, Longbowmen, Rods, Cav Archers, Rifle Riders...? There are tons of units in AoE3 that play with differing range/speed/rate of fire, and other things as well.
Image
momuuu wrote: ↑theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by zoom »

Janissaries are similar to hand cannoneers, but different, performing worse vs infantry but better against other units. Unit by unit, AoE2 is less diverse for sure (units and skins are all identical, except for unique units), but the viability of units is higher. Considering every civilization has one or two "unique" units, it's pretty pathetic how non-unique many of them are.
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by EAGLEMUT »

zoom wrote:Janissaries are similar to hand cannoneers, but different, performing worse vs infantry but better against other units.

Exactly. A very similar statement could be made about each of the AoE3 units I have listed here.
Image
momuuu wrote: ↑theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

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.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

Garja wrote:@Goodspeed
Reduced ROF makes the unit more annoying to micro. That s why Abus change it is criticized.
+2 range is not big deal except that 18 range was abus unique feature (and with balance implications), so in this case your argument goes against you.
Yes, uniqueness is inconvenient..
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

"Pretend-unique" units of AOE3? :grin:
How many civs on RE are based on just abusing one unit?
Jap, India, Otto, Sioux at the very least.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

EAGLEMUT 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.
Really? Seems to me Mangudai are just cav archers, Janissaries are just hand cannoneers, etc. Most are about as unique as Ruyters or Zamburaks are vs goons.
No, not "most". Some. Mangudai and Jans are some pretend-unique units, indeed, but that's 2 examples and AoE2 has 31 civs. And besides, while Mangudai are "just CA" and Jans are "just HC", they ARE stronger than their counterparts which helps to make the unit feel special. Producing Mangudai or Jans still feels great and special because you know they are going to outperform if your opponent tries to mirror their type. A Ruyter on the other hand is not even better than your average goon. What AoE3 did in many cases is add a new skin, change the stats around a little but still made sure that the unit was about as cost-effective as its counter parts. When I make Ruyters I don't feel like I'm making a unique unit. When I make Mangudai, I do.

Ever heard of Ashigaru, Yumi, Camels, Longbowmen, Rods, Cav Archers, Rifle Riders...? There are tons of units in AoE3 that play with differing range/speed/rate of fire, and other things as well.
The speed difference between ashi and regular musks is negligible compared to the speed differences you see in AoE2. Yumi are just another RI but at least better than their counterparts with the upgrades so that helps. Camels (I suppose you mean sowar) are just another HC with a bonus against the unit type that their type already counters... CA are not a unique unit, they are a unit type.

RR and longbows are great design. I'm not saying AoE3 has no unique units, just that the uniqueness is often pretend and at the very least the argument that AoE2 lacks unit diversity is wrong especially compared to AoE3.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by zoom »

Goodspeed wrote:
EAGLEMUT 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.
Really? Seems to me Mangudai are just cav archers, Janissaries are just hand cannoneers, etc. Most are about as unique as Ruyters or Zamburaks are vs goons.
No, not "most". Some. Mangudai and Jans are some pretend-unique units, indeed, but that's 2 examples and AoE2 has 31 civs. And besides, while Mangudai are "just CA" and Jans are "just HC", they ARE stronger than their counterparts which helps to make the unit feel special. Producing Mangudai or Jans still feels great and special because you know they are going to outperform if your opponent tries to mirror their type. A Ruyter on the other hand is not even better than your average goon. What AoE3 did in many cases is add a new skin, change the stats around a little but still made sure that the unit was about as cost-effective as its counter parts. When I make Ruyters I don't feel like I'm making a unique unit. When I make Mangudai, I do.

Ever heard of Ashigaru, Yumi, Camels, Longbowmen, Rods, Cav Archers, Rifle Riders...? There are tons of units in AoE3 that play with differing range/speed/rate of fire, and other things as well.
The speed difference between ashi and regular musks is negligible compared to the speed differences you see in AoE2. Yumi are just another RI but at least better than their counterparts with the upgrades so that helps. Camels (I suppose you mean sowar) are just another HC with a bonus against the unit type that their type already counters... CA are not a unique unit, they are a unit type.

RR and longbows are great design. I'm not saying AoE3 has no unique units, just that the uniqueness is often pretend and at the very least the argument that AoE2 lacks unit diversity is wrong especially compared to AoE3.
Janissaries aren't really stronger than Hand Cannoneers, considering the bonuses of Turks. They are just better performing against non-infantry.

Yeah, I watch Spirit of the Jizzless Rag. What are you gonna do about it??
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

Which makes them better because HC already rek inf. Also did you take the elite upgrade into account?
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Lancer
Posts: 817
Joined: Apr 16, 2017
ESO: HUMMAN

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by HUMMAN »

You are being harsh on aoe3. Take russia, completlely unique civ design, plus unique units + strat. In ottoman no unit like abus, ww completley different from goon(given your ruyter example). dopps(pikes with area), Spain full of unique melee, tercios, rods, lancers, organ gun, mercs etc. Dont tell me streelets are skirms, cossacks are hussars. Opchirnicks etc. very different civ. Gendarme has area damage, and they lose to hussar. Uhlan better at melee and raiding, hussar better at tanking. I may agree they all cost relatively high and thus has big stats ( no different hus clas like hussar - paladin aoe2/maybe step rider only), but that doesnt change diversity of cav.

Edit: About otto in aoe2, i think you make HC if your enemy goes pure infantry actually. +10 to inf is just good. And thinking again actually aoe3 has big cav too, like spahi/gendarme/elephant/mams/elmeti but not very common.
Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

No way aoe3 has less really unique units or strats even. And by far.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

Goodspeed wrote:I'm not saying AoE3 has no unique units, just that the uniqueness is often pretend and at the very least the argument that AoE2 lacks unit diversity is wrong especially compared to AoE3.

I get the bias towards AoE3 here, but I think sometimes it can prevent us from learning from AoE2 which is a shame because AoE2 did so many things so right. When we change abus to be more unique and people complain because they are so used to every skirm having the same RoF, I think of AoE2 and how it managed to play with stats like RoF and be just fine.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

On the uniqueness it is not a matter of bias. It is simply a fact that AOE3 has more.
On the ROF I think it is a stat you really dont want to mess with, especially since 3 secs already feels quite slow. In any case EP abus are hardly more unique, with their range being standardized in fortress. If anything, to comply with the EP idea of the unit, abus should have significantly more range and more rr. Basically an actual small artillery unit.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

On the uniqueness it is not a matter of bias. It is simply a fact that AOE3 has more.
On the ROF I think it is a stat you really dont want to mess with,
What a great example to illustrate my point
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

Well if you discard others arguments then you are the one with the confirmation bias.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

What other arguments? You're zooming in on abus too much. My point is that, in AoE3, there are apparently stats "you just don't want to mess with". Why? AoE2 managed just fine.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

Aside from the fact that I dont see it as an handicap of any sort, I was refering mostly to ranged massable units. Cannons have less rof and it feels ok.
AOE3 units have lot of other things compared to AOE2. Meelee mode for ranged units? Unique unit rof like urumi? Area of damage for cav for meelee units? Cards with unique upgrades for side stats?
What about the various multipliers? AOE2 has lees hard counters and that's the reason why they had to work so much on other stats. Im not saying it is better or worse but it is something different you didnt point out.
Should I also remind you that originally skirms had 5 speed, abus had area of damage, more range and more RR? Cassas and forest prowlers with more attack than regular skirms? Xbow being a stand alone RI unit and not a wannabe skirm?
Also what about archaic units on nilla being upgradable to guard status only for their respective civ?
I think a lot has been lost with the expansions and in particular with TAD.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

Cannons are a different unit type. I'm saying AoE3's units often lack diversity within their unit type. The uniqueness is often very conservative and doesn't change how the unit is used. Lancers' and cuirs' uniqueness makes them better at the role they were already good at, for example, so these units don't feel as unique as even AoE2's Janissary which was brought up earlier as an example of one of the least unique "unique" units it has. While it looks and works the same as the HC, it does fill a different role (HC counters inf, Jans are well-rounded).

AoE2 has hard counters, it is just not as strictly focused on hard counters between types, and again in AoE3 almost every unit strictly fits into a certain type. AoE2's unique units are looked at individually, not as units of a certain type with a unique trait added like AoE3 did in many cases. Do you see the difference I'm illustrating here or?

Should I also remind you that originally skirms had 5 speed, abus had area of damage, more range and more RR? Cassas and forest prowlers with more attack than regular skirms? Xbow being a stand alone RI unit and not a wannabe skirm?
And you think it was the right decision to, rather than find ways to keep the uniqueness of these units, standardize them? The cassador example is one I am especially annoyed about. The people who made that decision simply do not understand game design.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV