What's aoe2 like?

[Garja]

Well, clearly there were balance issues, each change should be considered separatedly. Cassas change is arguable but at least in this case the original design was possible because there was another standard ranged unit (xbow), plus organ gun (look, another unique unit) to fill the void in the range of available units.
Same thing for prowlers where you have aennas. But Otto only have abus. Jans dont exactly fill the gap left by not having a standard long range unit.
About unit types I dont think it is bad to have them and clearly defined. Also I dont see how canyou claim that they are not unique within same type when there are very few units shared among some euro civs and they still at least differ for the royal guard up. Often units within the same type differ in range (wakina, gurka, maces), speed (cassas, aenna, ashi), both (strelets),or even unique abilities (stealth prowlers).

[zoom]

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.

These posts make you seem biased against AoE3, in this regard. You are making the exact same distinctions between various units in the respective two games, but pretending that they are completely different.

[Djigit]

I lost all respect I had for GottGeschwindigkeit.

[zoom]

Which makes them better because HC already rek inf. Also did you take the elite upgrade into account?

I don't think you read that correctly. Either that, or you replied incorrectly.

My point is that the elite upgrade makes them less viable since it's so expensive, Elite Jans are arguably not better than HC in the first place, and Turks already gets free, instant Chemistry making them even more unviable.

[zoom]

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.

That's funny, because you seem to me pretty biased, ITT. You make some good point, too, though.

[Garja]

Unit diversity is defo not something to learn from AOE2.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Unit diversity is defo not something to learn from AOE2.

Unit diversity is much greater in aoe2 than it is in aoe3. The only game where it's better is Starcraft II

[Jaeger]

So in AOE2 you can get the same upgrade as many times as you want, as long as you're willing to pay for it? I saw a game where a guy seemed to keep cliking on the same upgrade for castle range, and he was sniping the kings from halfway across the map

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZdn-lNFoc

[[Armag] diarouga]

So in AOE2 you can get the same upgrade as many times as you want, as long as you're willing to pay for it? I saw a game where a guy seemed to keep cliking on the same upgrade for castle range, and he was sniping the kings from halfway across the map

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZdn-lNFoc

Are you sure that it's not because it's on a mod?

[Hazza54321]

complains about lack of unit diversity when patch changes are promoting skirm goon HAHAHAH

[Goodspeed]

So in AOE2 you can get the same upgrade as many times as you want, as long as you're willing to pay for it? I saw a game where a guy seemed to keep cliking on the same upgrade for castle range, and he was sniping the kings from halfway across the map

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZdn-lNFoc

Are you sure that it's not because it's on a mod?

It says mod in the title. That's definitely not possible in a regular game.

[Goodspeed]

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.

That's funny, because you seem to me pretty biased, ITT. You make some good point, too, though.

I would seem a lot less biased on an AoE2 forum. You guys are a tough crowd.

[Jaeger]

So in AOE2 you can get the same upgrade as many times as you want, as long as you're willing to pay for it? I saw a game where a guy seemed to keep cliking on the same upgrade for castle range, and he was sniping the kings from halfway across the map

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZdn-lNFoc

Are you sure that it's not because it's on a mod?

I have no idea, maybe. I have never played AOE2 really I don't know what's going on.

[zoom]

Show hidden quotes

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.

That's funny, because you seem to me pretty biased, ITT. You make some good point, too, though.

I would seem a lot less biased on an AoE2 forum. You guys are a tough crowd.

That you'd seem less biased to people sharing and exceeding your own bias isn't a very Goodspeed thing to say, is it now?

I don't think I'm being unfair, at least. I agree with most of what you're saying, and you're largely correct. It's just that, reading your posts ITT, it seems to me as if you are simultaneously disregarding facts going against your argument (specifically the many ways in which AoE2 units also aren't particularly unique), seemingly without realizing it.

I'm not arguing that AoE3 is a better game, either, I just happen to enjoy playing and watching it more.

[Goodspeed]

That you'd seem less biased to people sharing and exceeding your own bias isn't a very Goodspeed thing to say, is it now?

Well the point is that I seem more biased here because you're all biased the other way. And you know how I like to use hyperbole to get people's attention

disregarding facts going against your argument (specifically the many ways in which AoE2 units also aren't particularly unique), seemingly without realizing it.

What makes you say I'm disregarding facts? You like to say this but often have little basis for it.

[gamevideo113]

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

This series was played on non standard settings, it was much faster than the actual average game.

[gamevideo113]

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.

This. The thing with aoe2 is that unit diversity is not its strong point, it is rather the counter system, i'd say. Counters in aoe2 are not as hard as in aoe3, many of them are very situational. If you need to counter enemy archers you have a lot of options (skirms, knights, mangonels etc) which most civs have access to, so while the game doesn't have a lot of unit variety, it still has a nice strategical depth, which makes it easy to learn but hard to master. This is probably one of the reasons why it is such a popular game.

[gamevideo113]

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?

@Goodspeed
You're overestimating AoE2 unit variety. Most times this is what happens with AoE2 too. A lot of unique units are just units with maybe +0.2 speed and +2 armor or range. Only few of them have an actual unique role in the meta gameplay or have a strategy that can be based around them.
And when they do, it is because they are just strong af.

[gamevideo113]

Having probably 1k5 hours on aoe2 and 1k hours on aoe3, in my personal experience i think aoe2 tends to grow old a bit more quickly, since there is overall less strategical variety considering most civs play out similarly, and also considering that the game is a bit slower. It might be a bit more micro intensive but it also suffers from artificial castrations like the scout line of sight which is insanely low in the dark age and therefore slows the game down even more. The quickest time you can have some actual action (excluding a drush) is 8 minutes (real time), and if the map is a FC map then you will have to wait until 12 minutes or more. Setting up your base is all good and fun but when you have to do it automatically every game it can get a bit boring.
Aoe3 on the other hand lacks a bit on the unit composition and micromanagement departments, but on the rest i think it does a great job.

[momuuu]

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.

People calling aoe2 slow refer to the actual pace of the game, not the mechanical speed. Aoe2 is killing to play, it requires you to be extremely fast mechanically and anyone who tries to play this game would definitely acknowledge this. However, the pace of the game is definitely slower. It seems to take much longer to have anything going or get any amount of mass of units. In that sense it's very slow. However usually it's not as bothersome because just playing the game without anything happening is hard and thus not truly boring. The game is actually so hard that for many of us strategy becomes of secondary order. I actually played a friend 1v1 in aoe2, who actually plays quite a reasonable amount online but isn't truly an RTS player. He knew how to counter what units and how the unit compositions and strategies really worked while I had a vague idea but was mostly freestyling (I had practised a tiny bit versus AI and had become familiar with the mechanics though). I obliterated him, simply by having superior mechanics. But anyways, yes the game is fast but it's also slow. It just depends on how you look at it. It's a fair point that a part of aoe3's slowness is the extremely boring age 1, but other than that the resource collection rate seems to be significantly faster. I think I slightly prefer aoe3, although something in the middle of these two would be very enjoyable to me. Mechanically harder and faster, but not as hard as aoe2.

I think the point you should make about units is not about the unique units, but actually about the basic units. Unique units in aoe2 are very frequently reskins or restats of other units or similairly unique to aoe3's unique units. However, the core thing that makes the aoe2 units feel more interesting to me is the fact that they don't just have a 3 unit type counter system. For example, Knights (and most cav) are countered by spearman, which are countered both by swordsman and archers, but swordsman are countered by archers while archers are countered by skirmishers and mangodels, oh and knights are also countered by camels and priests, which are probably best dealt with by using light cav, and then on top of that the unique unit (and civ tech tree) starts interacting with this complicated counter system, which makes civ feel reasonably unique too. However, I think the unit diversity actually is mostly caused by the superior counter system, which ends up being quite complicated. It's complicated even more by the fact that upgrades are very expensive and that gold is scarce - meaning you can't upgrade everything. Also, gold being scarce means you have to be careful with using the gold units properly too or you risk running out of gold too quickly. This is what makes aoe2 extremely interesting I think. It's not necessarily as build order focused, but this strategic aspect (something completely absent in aoe3, where you just build skirm goon) is the most defining strategic aspect of the game I think. I hope aoe4 might combine some of the aspects of these both games.

And yes, the difference in civs in aoe3 definitely causes design problems which are possibly amplified by the nature of hunts and map control. Aoe3 as a game is somewhat one-dimensional: boom up a bit until safe resources run out, then make military only. The game is diversified by build order interactions: Maybe some rush or timing can punish the booming, maybe you can find a way to get a little bit of extra greed out, maybe you can find a way to be greedy against a naturally aggressive civ. But once the build orders have played out, aoe3 isn't the best RTS. Unit compositions don't differ much, army positioning is relatively uninteresting, and the mechanical side of aoe3 isn't as fun anymore. You're just massing up and microing to see how your build order plays out. In terms of design, I think aoe3 actually suffers from the way natural resources work: The extreme importance of map control only allows for one playstyle (mass units once resources run out) which is only made interesting by civs being very different from eachother. However, I do believe increased civ variety can work and play out similairly like aoe2 if the map control importance is relieved a bit. This is of course the biggest challenge for RTS games, achieving civ diversity without creating big problems in the game. In some sense aoe2 shows that you don't actually need much civ diversity to make a good RTS, however I also think aoe3 shows that a flawed RTS can be tons of fun due to civ variety (Isn't this the part about aoe3 you love so very much, the build order strategies that bring you the victories, those strategies you've written big guides about. I'd say this is a huge reason I play aoe3 over aoe2). If somehow aoe4 manages to hit the middle ground between these two games, in terms of pace and uniqueness, while preserving the interesting unit types of aoe2 and the way gold makes the game interesting, then it would be a stellar RTS.

In terms of quality of life changes: I'd like something in between aoe2/sc2 and aoe3. Aoe3 is too easy to me, there's no outmacroing or anything. But aoe2 and sc2 are maybe a bit too hard to manage. I'd feel like the proper balance is somewhere in between: relatively easy to macro everything well when nothing is going on, but hard to multitask and micro at the same time. Honestly, I feel like the only quality of life change I'd make to aoe2/sc2 is to simply add a production queue like in aoe3. It doesn't really feel that rewarding to constantly have to remember to macro. It feels more rewarding to be reminded to macro and then multitask really well. It wouldnt become aoe3, with 2 production buildings, batches of 5 and attack-movy fights, but it wouldn't be as draining as sc2 and aoe2. Again, the middle ground between those days would probably result in a top tier RTS.

Anyways, my post has only been partially a response to you and partially me just theorizing and thinking out loud. For clarity, I think we mostly agree on things but with slight nuanced differences (before you start interpreting my response as counterargument).

[Lukas_L99]

Also is it just me or does shift click not work in that game?

[gamevideo113]

I think many people here overestimate a bit how hard aoe2 is. It is very micro intensive, yes, but in the end it all comes down to muscle memory and i think many of you could easily reach 1800 on voobly with a fair share of practice. Having a flawless execution is impossible in aoe2, even pros make mistakes/mismacro, so maybe you consider aoe2 very hard because you see that your execution is far from being perfect, but that is actually applicable for everyone. With the right hotkeys it doesn't take a south korean player to be good at aoe2.
@Lukas_L99 shift click only works for queuing movements and producing groups of 5 units, but it doesn't work for queuing commands like "build this house and then chop wood" (for a villager).

[Goodspeed]

This. The thing with aoe2 is that unit diversity is not its strong point, it is rather the counter system, i'd say. Counters in aoe2 are not as hard as in aoe3, many of them are very situational. If you need to counter enemy archers you have a lot of options (skirms, knights, mangonels etc) which most civs have access to, so while the game doesn't have a lot of unit variety, it still has a nice strategical depth, which makes it easy to learn but hard to master. This is probably one of the reasons why it is such a popular game.

To me, the counter system is part of unit diversity and indeed a very important way AoE2 did a better job than AoE3. AoE3 has strict unit types, and most unique units fall into one of those types making them not feel unique. I tried to make this point but maybe I wasn't clear. Some quotes:

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.

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 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?

Unique units in AoE2 often don't fit a type or role that another standard unit already fits into. They are often used differently than any other unit, and yes this is mostly due to AoE2's more complicated counter system. That, to me, is part of unit diversity. By making a complex counter system and designing units so that they fill a unique role within that system, you are creating unit diversity. In AoE3 on the other hand, almost every unit fits a certain type and is used in the same way as other units of that type. The ones that don't strictly fit into the role of a type (RR, longbows) are the ones that have an actual unique feel. But there aren't as many of those as in AoE2.

[Lukas_L99]

@Lukas_L99 shift click only works for queuing movements and producing groups of 5 units, but it doesn't work for queuing commands like "build this house and then chop wood" (for a villager).

Hmm shift click doesnt even work for my scouting cav :/

[Goodspeed]

I think many people here overestimate a bit how hard aoe2 is. It is very micro intensive, yes, but in the end it all comes down to muscle memory and i think many of you could easily reach 1800 on voobly with a fair share of practice. Having a flawless execution is impossible in aoe2, even pros make mistakes/mismacro, so maybe you consider aoe2 very hard because you see that your execution is far from being perfect, but that is actually applicable for everyone. With the right hotkeys it doesn't take a south korean player to be good at aoe2.
@Lukas_L99 shift click only works for queuing movements and producing groups of 5 units, but it doesn't work for queuing commands like "build this house and then chop wood" (for a villager).

1800 is nothing when the top players are 2600+. In the end, a skill-based game is only as hard as the competition. On AoE3, 1800 would be luitenant level, which any experienced RTS player with a will to improve could reach in less than a week. I think it is much easier to reach 2k+ in AoE3 than it is in AoE2, mostly because AoE2 is bigger and the players are more experienced on average.

Related: You say it gets old more quickly in your opinion but as you know this is very subjective, and most people don't agree. There are a lot of players who have countless hours in AoE2, as shown by the size of the community and the average experience level of the players.