What's aoe2 like?

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by momuuu »

Goodspeed wrote:
gamevideo113 wrote: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.

Wait but this isn't really true is it? Many aoe2 unique units fits roles that already exist. They just have tiny unique aspects to them that usually simply make them a bit better. In that sense I think aoe3's unique units are similair. Longbows are tweaked xbows/skirms, Dutch has Ruyters which are very similair to goons, Ottos have abus guns which are very unique skirms, France has Gendarmes which are a variation of hand cav, Germany has Dopps (unique HI), War wagons (a variation on goons) and Uhlans ('hand cav that is better at raiding'), Ports have Cassadores (glass cannon skirms) and Organ guns (different falconets), Spain has rods (unique HI) and Lancers (cav that is better against HI), Russia has strelets (cheap cannonfodder skirms) and Oprichnicks (cav that is really good at raiding).

Compare this to aoe2 unique units: Longbows are simply archers with more range (less unique than brit longbows in aoe3 really). Cataphracts are like Lancers in a sense. CKN are simply improved crossbowman. Samurais are simply champions with a tiny bonus against unique units, mangudais are simply cav archers with a bonus against siege. Janissaries are simply cannoneers. Some of the units feel more unique but thats probably because the counter system is so complex, whereas in aoe3 the units just feel like a variation on skirms/anticav/cav because thats how our game works.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by gamevideo113 »

Lukas_L99 wrote:
gamevideo113 wrote:@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 :/

You need to hold the shift key until the last command, that you have to give without shift. It's awkward, yeah.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

momuuu wrote:Wait but this isn't really true is it? Many aoe2 unique units fits roles that already exist.
The unique ones often don't. Not always, but often. That you can think of examples where they do fit existing roles of standard units does not invalidate my point because my point is about the comparison between 2 games, I'm not stating in absolute terms that all of AoE2's unique units are better than all of AoE3's unique units. Remember, there are 31 civs in that game.
They just have tiny unique aspects to them that usually simply make them a bit better. In that sense I think aoe3's unique units are similair. Longbows are tweaked xbows/skirms,
Longbows were one of the examples of units that I think are well-designed unique units. They are actually not tweaked xbows/skirms. They are worse against musks and better against tanky units and they have higher range. They actually feel unique.
Dutch has Ruyters which are very similair to goons,
Right, Ruyters are an example of a "pretend unique" unit because they fill the exact same role as goons.
In this there is a significant difference in uniqueness between longbows and ruyters. This has been my point. In AoE3, most unique units are like ruyters in that they fall into an existing type and fill the exact same role as other units of that type, e.g. cuirs, uhlans, lancers, axe riders, cassadors, wakina, yumi, ashi, sepoy, zamburak, sowar, I could go on.
Compare this to aoe2 unique units: Longbows are simply archers with more range (less unique than brit longbows in aoe3 really).
To be fair the range difference in AoE2 is much greater than in AoE3. Longbows outrange just about everything in AoE2, which makes them feel very different than others archers. But I agree that AoE3's longbows are a proper unique unit, like I said.
Cataphracts are like Lancers in a sense.
Cataphracts are pretend-unique. I'm not saying every unique unit in AoE2 is better than every unique unit in AoE3. There is just more uniqueness to be found in AoE2, because it has a more complex counter system which gave them room to design more unique units, and they took more liberty with stats like speed, RoF and range. If not more uniqueness, certainly not less, which is the initial statement that I disagreed with ITT. In AoE3 I can count the number of viable unique units that actually feel unique on 1 hand.
Some of the units feel more unique but thats probably because the counter system is so complex, whereas in aoe3 the units just feel like a variation on skirms/anticav/cav because thats how our game works.
Yep that's my point. There is less variety because in AoE3 the designers have mostly tried to make even the unique units fit into existing unit types and that is significantly limiting the unique "feel" of the units. There are so many examples of "unique" units that don't feel unique in AoE3.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by gamevideo113 »

Aoe2 units have a ton of hidden bonuses and tags, which imo is not a good design feature. In practice it works, the gameplay is good, but having to look at the wiki every time to check the bonuses is a bit annoying. This also goes for rate of fire, accuracy and speed. It's quite a mess.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by momuuu »

Goodspeed wrote:
momuuu wrote:Wait but this isn't really true is it? Many aoe2 unique units fits roles that already exist.
The unique ones often don't. Not always, but often. That you can think of examples where they do fit existing roles of standard units does not invalidate my point because my point is about the comparison between 2 games, I'm not stating in absolute terms that all of AoE2's unique units are better than all of AoE3's unique units. Remember, there are 31 civs in that game.
They just have tiny unique aspects to them that usually simply make them a bit better. In that sense I think aoe3's unique units are similair. Longbows are tweaked xbows/skirms,
Longbows were one of the examples of units that I think are well-designed unique units. They are actually not tweaked xbows/skirms. They are worse against musks and better against tanky units and they have higher range. They actually feel unique.
Dutch has Ruyters which are very similair to goons,
Right, Ruyters are an example of a "pretend unique" unit because they fill the exact same role as goons.
In this there is a significant difference in uniqueness between longbows and ruyters. This has been my point. In AoE3, most unique units are like ruyters in that they fall into an existing type and fill the exact same role as other units of that type, e.g. cuirs, uhlans, lancers, axe riders, cassadors, wakina, yumi, ashi, sepoy, zamburak, sowar, I could go on.
Compare this to aoe2 unique units: Longbows are simply archers with more range (less unique than brit longbows in aoe3 really).
To be fair the range difference in AoE2 is much greater than in AoE3. Longbows outrange just about everything in AoE2, which makes them feel very different than others archers. But I agree that AoE3's longbows are a proper unique unit, like I said.
Cataphracts are like Lancers in a sense.
Cataphracts are pretend-unique. I'm not saying every unique unit in AoE2 is better than every unique unit in AoE3. There is just more uniqueness to be found in AoE2, because it has a more complex counter system which gave them room to design more unique units, and they took more liberty with stats like speed, RoF and range. If not more uniqueness, certainly not less, which is the initial statement that I disagreed with ITT. In AoE3 I can count the number of viable unique units that actually feel unique on 1 hand.
Some of the units feel more unique but thats probably because the counter system is so complex, whereas in aoe3 the units just feel like a variation on skirms/anticav/cav because thats how our game works.
Yep that's my point. There is less variety because in AoE3 the designers have mostly tried to make even the unique units fit into existing unit types and that is significantly limiting the unique "feel" of the units. There are so many examples of "unique" units that don't feel unique in AoE3.

In general I kind of agree. However, you're too quick to dismiss aoe3's unique units as rare and abnormal and aoe2's units that aren't unique as anomalies. I did actually take a look at the list.


Aoe2:
Longbowman: not very unique, just extra range
Cataphract: reasonably unique, splash + bonus vs infantry
Woad Raider:
Chu ko No: Literally a better xbow
Throwing axeman: Ranged champion
Huskarl: Actually a very unique unit, its a fast anti archer infantry
Samurai: Basically a champion that also counters champions
Mangudai: Basically a cav archer with a bonus against siege engines
War Elephant: Basically an improved ram
Mameluke: Ranged camel
Teutonic knight: Pretty unique unit I think, can't think of anything similair
Janissary: Hand cannoneer
Berserk:

Jaguar Warrior: It's like the samurai
Tarkan: cavalry good against buildings - it's somewhat useless though
War wagon: 'high-armored cavalry archer'
Plumed Archer: Basically a better archer
Conquistador: Basically a variation of a cav archer


And then the most recent expansions I don't actually know any units, plus I left some blanks. But are these units that unique? I see mostly improvements of standard units. The thing that makes them feel more unique is that the counter system is so well designed that changing the strength of one specific unit type has a big impact on the way the game plays. However, the units an sich are not more unique. For comparison, lets look at aoe3:

Brits: Longbows, completely different type of skirmisher, very unique
Dutch: No actual truly unique units, Ruyter is basically a reskin
France: CDB and Cuirs are reasonably unique although simply improved versions of their counterparts
Germany: Dopps are pretty unique with the splash damage, war wagons function very differently from goons
Otto: Abus guns are entirely different units from skirms
Portuguese: Cassadores are skirmishers with more range resist and fewer hp
Russia: Strelets are very unique cannon fodder skirms with low range but good cost efficiency. Oprichniks are completely unique
Spain: Rods are faster pikes, Lancers have a bonus vs Heavy infantry
Iro: Mantlets, Rams and Light cannons are all unique although meh. Aennas are unique archers with more dps, speed and ROF
Sioux: Bow riders are improved versions of ranged cav to the point where they function well against heavy infantry
Aztec: Maces, Coyotes, Eagle runners, arrow knights and JPKs are all rather unique
Japan: Samurais and yabusames are pretty unique, so are flaming arrows
India: Elephants and rajputs are unique, although somewhat bad, same with flail elephants and siege elephants
China: I'd say meteor hammers function differently, with a ranged attack. Flame throwers and hand mortars are quite special however they're both quite weak.

I'd say for aoe2 there are these categories:
Civs whose unique unit is literally just the same but slightly better: CKN, Janissary, Plumed archer, Conquistador, War Wagon (5/16 units I understand)
Civs whose unique unit is a same unit with added range: Longbowman, Throwing axeman, Mameluke (3/16)
Civs whose unique unit has one different small counter more than its counterpart: Cataphract, Samurai, Mangudai, War Elephant, Jaguar warrior, Tarkan (6/16)
Civs with really unique units that function differently: huskarl, teutonic knight (2/16)
You yourself even state that the cataphract is really not unique, yet it's one of the most unique unique units in aoe2.

for aoe3:
Civs whose unique unit is just a slightly improved version: Ruyter, cuirasier, maybe india deserves to be placed here, and of course many civs have units like this (3/14)
Civs whose unique unit functions slightly differently: Aenna, Cassadore, Strelet, Maces, Coyotes, Meteor Hammers (4/14) <- not counting strelets here because russia also has oprichnicks
Civs whose unique unit functions very differently: War wagon (static, slow goon), Longbowman (worse against HI but better all around with a lot of range), Rods (due to being much faster than pikes they are very different from pikes/halbs because they can chase cav and jump on skirms), Lancers (bonus against HI means they can fight musketeers), Oprichnicks (might belong to the other category), Bow riders (because they basically have a bonus against infantry/goons compared to goons), Dopps (deadly close range inf), Samurai, hand mortars. (6/14)
Civs with really unique units that are unlike others: Abus guns (1/14)

This looks pretty similairly doesn't it. I think it's possible to come up with an equivalent unique unit in aoe3 compared to aoe2 ones:
CKN, Janissary, Plumed archer, Conquistador, War Wagon <-> ashigaru, yumi, zamb, sowar, nagi, axe rider, cuirasier, ruyter etc.
Longbowman, Throwing axeman, Mameluke <-> Meteor hammers, Strelets (units with more or less range which changes how they work in the game)
Cataphract <-> Lancer
Samurai, Jaguar warrior <-> JPK
Mangudai <-> Bow rider
Tarkan <-> Oprichnick
The huskarl and teutonic knight are very unique. I'm doubting if war elephant might be 'really unique' instead of what I put it in.

These differences are minimal. The uniqueness of the units an sich is not very different between these two games.
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by lordraphael »

goodspeed overrating aoe 2 diversity. Most unique units are just improved versions of std units. However aoe 2 does work more with unit stats because theres no hard counter system excpet for pikes vs cav id say and maybe hand cannons vs inf. all others are soft counters. cataphracts are pretty unique btw. THey do splash ( after upgrade ) they do extra dmg to inf and they absorb 12 / 16 dmg points from other units bonus attack vs cav. Which makes them very different from a paladin.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
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:
zoom wrote: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.
What makes me say this is you failing to acknowledge the factors going against your argument while touting the same factors going for your argument; specifically the many ways in which AoE2 units also aren't particularly unique (all units being exactly identical apart from unique units, many unique units not being very unique, a lack of unique skins). I'm not disagreeing with the points you make; you are just ignoring inconvenient (for the sake of your argument) facts while making them, and I'm hoping to highlight this for the sake of accuracy and fairness.

How am I being biased ITT? Again, I don't think that's a fair thing to say, considering I'm basically agreeing with you, and it further reflects poorly on your argument. As far as I can tell, you're the one failing to recognize facts, not I.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

The only limit to AOE3 unit diversity is the fact that age based upgrades grant almost exclusively HP and damage boosts. And that's cause unique upgrades come from cards.
Image Image Image
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 »

Garja wrote:The only limit to AOE3 unit diversity is the fact that age based upgrades grant almost exclusively HP and damage boosts. And that's cause unique upgrades come from cards.
How's that? I think Goodspeed has pointed out several of its limitations, already.
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 »

zoom wrote:
Garja wrote:The only limit to AOE3 unit diversity is the fact that age based upgrades grant almost exclusively HP and damage boosts. And that's cause unique upgrades come from cards.
How's that? I think Goodspeed has pointed out several of its limitations, already.

Well it's a garja answer.
Honestly, once you read "always", "never", "only", "objectively" or "it has always been like that" in a garja sentence, you know that it's most likely going to be a nonsense based on nothing.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

It's simple. I read some of his arguments, discard them since they don't convince me and summarize the topic, drawing conclusions. And the conclusion is that AOE3 unit diversity is perfectly fine and actually superior to that of AOE2. The only thing that limits diversity in AOE3 (not just compared to AOE2 but also AOEO etc.) is the somewhat repetitiveness of age-based upgrades. Which, again, is due to the fact that range and other unique ups have been moved to the card system.
Image Image Image
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 »

Yep, that's what I said, you read a post, and in 10 sec you decide that it's wrong, and don't bother to explain why because since you're garja everything you say has to be right.

I don't want to get involved in this discussion because it would take a lot of time but I'd say that aoe2 unit diversity is vastly superior because each civ has a unique (or almost unique), there are many different unit types, and finally, upgraded units are really different.
For example, I'd argue that archers and crossbowmen are different units, and that it is not true in aoe3, even if you consider the cav system.

Anyway, as GS said, it's obvious that people are going to defend aoe3 on an aoe3 forum, so it's not worth arguing.
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 »

I tend to agree with Goodspeed and yourself on this question.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

The same arguments applies exactly to AOE3, hence why they get discarded. Like for example archers and xbows being different. They literally don't share a single stat and they are used differently. They also don't have same ups (xbows don't have guard except besterios) and in some specific archers (aenna, lbows, etc.) have their unique upgrades, through cards.
As you see I do explain things and actually I did in my previous post too. It's just that you guys are often too slow arguing rly, nitpicking on stuff that isn't going to make the difference in the end.
Image Image Image
Czech Republic Googol
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1728
Joined: Jan 12, 2017
ESO: Butifle
Location: Central Bohemia

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Googol »

I think he meant that they're both used for the same purpose in particular for countering heavy infantry. Not about their stats and upgrades for each different unit.
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, xbows are actually a more well rounded unit, at least orginally. Would be cool to hear the argument about xbows and archers having a different purpose than dealing ranged damage in AOE2 :hmm:
Image Image Image
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by gamevideo113 »

Well personally i'm not defending aoe3 for the sake of it, i played both games a lot and i think that in the end aoe3 has more variety when it comes to units, even for the simple fact that in aoe2 every civ has the same exact units besides the unique one, which isn't even always really unique (woad raider=champion+0.2 speed, berserk=champion with regen, samurai and jaguar warrior=champion with bonus damage, longbow=arbalest with +1atk +1range and so on). Obviously when you consider how the game is played you might see this differently (musk+huss or skirm+goon are not very varied as an army comp, but in aoe3 when you get bored of one civ you can use another one with a completely different playstyle, in aoe2 you can't really change the civ; obviously there are differences between aoe2 civs but they are by far more marginal than those in aoe3). Aoe2 offers more variety within the civ itself, aoe3 offers more variety across different civs, so overall i think it kinda evens out and it comes down to personal preference.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
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 »

gamevideo113 wrote:Well personally i'm not defending aoe3 for the sake of it, i played both games a lot and i think that in the end aoe3 has more variety when it comes to units, even for the simple fact that in aoe2 every civ has the same exact units besides the unique one, which isn't even always really unique (woad raider=champion+0.2 speed, berserk=champion with regen, samurai and jaguar warrior=champion with bonus damage, longbow=arbalest with +1atk +1range and so on). Obviously when you consider how the game is played you might see this differently (musk+huss or skirm+goon are not very varied as an army comp, but in aoe3 when you get bored of one civ you can use another one with a completely different playstyle, in aoe2 you can't really change the civ; obviously there are differences between aoe2 civs but they are by far more marginal than those in aoe3). Aoe2 offers more variety within the civ itself, aoe3 offers more variety across different civs, so overall i think it kinda evens out and it comes down to personal preference.

Goodspeed's point was that actually aoe3 units are about the same, even if ashigarus are slightly different from Janissaries etc.
You also have to consider that half of the aoe3 units are totally useless (Rajputs, Flail Elephants, grens, the sioux weird cav, I don't even know its name lol ...), and thus you only really have skirm, goon, musk, huss, archers, canons, hand inf because the other units are seen in one game out of 100.

You have a point though, aoe2 civs have similar units, but in the end, I think that it's much better to have all civs having the same units but being able to make the composition you want, than having only one unit composition available with each civ. Except India and Japan, you can't really choose your unit composition.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by gamevideo113 »

To ba fair even in aoe2 you can't always choose the composition you want, sometimes your civ bonuses and weaknesses make the choice for you. For example with mayans you will always make archers.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
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 »

gamevideo113 wrote:To ba fair even in aoe2 you can't always choose the composition you want, sometimes your civ bonuses and weaknesses make the choice for you. For example with mayans you will always make archers.

Yes you want to make archers, but you can mix with skirmishers. While in aoe3 you can go skirm/goon and add some musks or xbows xD.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Garja »

Actually nothing prevents you from adding xbows to skirms, especially with French whose ups affect both bows and skrirms. Vet xbows have higher dps per cost than skirms so in some niche cases they actually perform better.
A lot of what's viable in AOE3 depends on player habits. Speaking of which, AOE3 also has native units, which while they do fall in the same categories they also have different stats than standard units.
Image Image Image
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by deleted_user0 »

going nats is often not viable though. only 25% of them are decent units, and the fact u cant really mass them and the nat posts are often in shit places or with shit combos makes it not viable. sadly. paradoxically its often the melee pike like nat units that are most useful to make as they have stats make them more useful than pikes, while the alternative to bows are usually not better than bows.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

zoom wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
zoom wrote: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.
What makes me say this is you failing to acknowledge the factors going against your argument while touting the same factors going for your argument;
Can you name examples of this? Because the ones that follow are not good examples.
(all units being exactly identical apart from unique units,
Not true, civ bonuses and differences in the tech tree can make the same unit different per civ. Brit archers have more range, Ethiopian archers fire faster, etc.
It also helps that the blacksmith (AoE3 equivalent is the arsenal) is actually a relevant building. Again specifically archers, whose range changes with upgrades, feel like different units as you upgrade them.
many unique units not being very unique,
Did I deny this? My point is about what uniqueness means in these 2 games. AoE3 took a conservative approach with its much more consistent type-based counter system and relative unwillingness to mess with stats like RoF, speed, range, etcetera. Unique units in AoE3 are almost never actually unique, whereas in AoE2 most of them are.
a lack of unique skins)
All unique units have their own skin? Anyway I don't think reskinning a unit counts. Ruyters don't feel like a unique unit.
you are just ignoring inconvenient (for the sake of your argument) facts while making them, and I'm hoping to highlight this for the sake of accuracy and fairness.
Again, which facts am I ignoring? The ones you mentioned in your post I either did not ignore or are not relevant to my point.
How am I being biased ITT?
By having spent much more time on AoE3. Its intricacies are more clear to you, which means you see more uniqueness. Subconscious bias. I don't think your posts are necessarily biased, other than by calling me biased which I don't believe I am.
Remember this started simply as me disagreeing with someone about AoE3 having more unit diversity. If you think it does, then we'll have to agree to disagree and we probably have different definitions of diversity.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by momuuu »

[Armag] diarouga wrote:Yep, that's what I said, you read a post, and in 10 sec you decide that it's wrong, and don't bother to explain why because since you're garja everything you say has to be right.

I don't want to get involved in this discussion because it would take a lot of time but I'd say that aoe2 unit diversity is vastly superior because each civ has a unique (or almost unique), there are many different unit types, and finally, upgraded units are really different.
For example, I'd argue that archers and crossbowmen are different units, and that it is not true in aoe3, even if you consider the cav system.

Anyway, as GS said, it's obvious that people are going to defend aoe3 on an aoe3 forum, so it's not worth arguing.

Its mostly the countersystem though, that is better, more complicated and makes units feel more unique. The difference between archers and xbows isnt that big. The difference between xbows and skirms is way bigger.

The thing in aoe2 is that all units keep being decent in their role: skirms are good throughout the game as trash, same with pikes as both fill a unique roll. Knights stay unique, so do scouts (as trash) and Camels. While in aoe3 skirms are just strictly superior to xbow and goons almost to musketeers. So that makes skirms feel like improved xbows.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: What's aoe2 like?

Post by Goodspeed »

@momuuu I'm not really interested in going through every single unit in both games and don't think it's necessary because the difference in approach when it comes to unit uniqueness between the 2 games is pretty apparent. But your bias is so obvious it should be pointed out:
Longbowman: not very unique, just extra range
Brits: Longbows, completely different type of skirmisher, very unique
FU Brit longbows in AoE2 have 12 range (correct if wrong). Regular FU arbalests have 8. That's +50%. The unit feels completely different. I know it's just range, but the degree matters. This is an important point because it's a common occurrence: AoE2 took more liberty with the numbers in general.

War Elephant: Basically an improved ram
Please...
Mameluke: Ranged camel
Which changes everything. Same goes for throwing axemen.
Plumed Archer: Basically a better archer
Did you forget about its much higher speed? Speed is a very significant stat.
War wagon: 'high-armored cavalry archer'
I know that's what the game says but the unit does not fit the CA role at all.
Etc.

And then this:
Civs with really unique units that function differently: huskarl, teutonic knight (2/16)
Civs whose unique unit functions very differently: War wagon (static, slow goon), Longbowman (worse against HI but better all around with a lot of range), Rods (due to being much faster than pikes they are very different from pikes/halbs because they can chase cav and jump on skirms), Lancers (bonus against HI means they can fight musketeers), Oprichnicks (might belong to the other category), Bow riders (because they basically have a bonus against infantry/goons compared to goons), Dopps (deadly close range inf), Samurai, hand mortars. (6/14)

You manage to include rods, which are in your own words "faster pikes", in this, and not plumed archers when the difference in speed is much greater in the case of plumed archers. You also manage to include AoE3's war wagons, which actually function very similarly to goons, and lancers which function the same as other heavy cav, and you don't include AoE2's war wagons, war elephants, mamelukes, throwing axemen, woad raiders, conquistadors etc (most AoE2 unique units are more unique than rods, lancers and AoE3 war wagons imo). And all that is without the newer AoE2 expansions.

And they call me biased...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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