What would we accept as maximum complexity in this game?
What would we accept as maximum complexity in this game?
What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us? For many years, we've played with the 14 civs legacy offered us. A couple of them were even barely used. The Definitive Edition gave us a lot of new content, but where does it end? What would WE accept as the maximum content limit, maximum complexity, maximum civ variety? Right now we got 19 civs. The Swedes, Inca, USA and two new African civs were added to the game.
The game becomes harder for new players, trying to master it. Though, the game becomes more interesting for active players. They definitely won't get bored out.
What do you think? What's the max? Is there actually a maximum? Post below! I'm curious.
The game becomes harder for new players, trying to master it. Though, the game becomes more interesting for active players. They definitely won't get bored out.
What do you think? What's the max? Is there actually a maximum? Post below! I'm curious.
My AoE3 YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MCJimAgeofEmpiresIII
My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_
Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_
Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I love the complexity. I think once you do learn the game to certain degree, the complexity of aoe3 is extremely rewarding. It's basically managed to remain fun, novel, and interesting for me for 10+ years. What other game can offer that? I basically don't enjoy any other computer / video game really. The new civs we are getting are just going onto the backburner for me, since I still feel like I haven't figured out everything from TWC/TAD, much less DE civs. I suspect if global civilization doesn't collapse, I'll probably keep playing casually for another 10 years just because there's so much to learn still.
That said, I definitely think part of why aoe2 has been more successful over the years is because it's just easier to get into for a new player. The civs are all sort of copy-pasted versions of the same thing with slight changes, and aesthetic differences. I can definitely see how aoe3 must just be extremely overwhelming for a new player. Not only do you have to learn totally new build orders and mechanics every time you want to try a different civ, but good luck on the quicksearch ladder when you 80-90% of the time you are playing against units you've never seen before and have no idea how to counter them! In order to stand a chance in multiplayer you basically have to become pretty familiar with every civ, which means playing and learning nearly every civ to a certain level.
I was wondering recently what it would be like to make a "Simple AoE3" mod, where you just copy paste France 19 times (i know, the semi-ff gang just felt a twinge) to remove the unique civ bonuses, but keep the units as the only thing that would be different. So you would just have an India civ with no added villagers from shipments, normal European age-ups, no consulate (get rid of export, community plaza, and influence, whatever it is), but still with units like sepoy/gurkha/sowar etc. Obviously you might have to tweak things for balance, like maybe just remove factories from the game, but you get the idea. A simplified version of AoE3 where the diversity of units is maintained for flavor, but the civ mechanics are basically copy-pasted versions of France. I kinda think that if the original AoE3 devs had the chance to do AoE3 over again in 2005, this is probably what they would have done, since they have expressed regret with how crazy they made some aoe3 civs if I recall correctly.
I would be interested in trying out a Simple AoE3 mod, but I wouldn't want to play it long term. It's not for everyone, but the complexity of AoE3 is what keeps me around. I sorta think this has to be our pitch, if someone asks why they should play aoe3 over aoe2. It's like Dwarf Fortress or something.
That said, I definitely think part of why aoe2 has been more successful over the years is because it's just easier to get into for a new player. The civs are all sort of copy-pasted versions of the same thing with slight changes, and aesthetic differences. I can definitely see how aoe3 must just be extremely overwhelming for a new player. Not only do you have to learn totally new build orders and mechanics every time you want to try a different civ, but good luck on the quicksearch ladder when you 80-90% of the time you are playing against units you've never seen before and have no idea how to counter them! In order to stand a chance in multiplayer you basically have to become pretty familiar with every civ, which means playing and learning nearly every civ to a certain level.
I was wondering recently what it would be like to make a "Simple AoE3" mod, where you just copy paste France 19 times (i know, the semi-ff gang just felt a twinge) to remove the unique civ bonuses, but keep the units as the only thing that would be different. So you would just have an India civ with no added villagers from shipments, normal European age-ups, no consulate (get rid of export, community plaza, and influence, whatever it is), but still with units like sepoy/gurkha/sowar etc. Obviously you might have to tweak things for balance, like maybe just remove factories from the game, but you get the idea. A simplified version of AoE3 where the diversity of units is maintained for flavor, but the civ mechanics are basically copy-pasted versions of France. I kinda think that if the original AoE3 devs had the chance to do AoE3 over again in 2005, this is probably what they would have done, since they have expressed regret with how crazy they made some aoe3 civs if I recall correctly.
I would be interested in trying out a Simple AoE3 mod, but I wouldn't want to play it long term. It's not for everyone, but the complexity of AoE3 is what keeps me around. I sorta think this has to be our pitch, if someone asks why they should play aoe3 over aoe2. It's like Dwarf Fortress or something.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Unless you're trying to play all civs I don't think the complexity grows that much at a casual level. For people playing mainly 2-3 civs it's just a matter of recognizing typical units and common strategies.
At a tournament level I guess it's a bit different since players need to thoroughly understand the common matchups for each civ they want play and there are more matchups. Then again, some matchups are clearly favored one way or another so they're not that likely to occur.
I would say that the limiting factor is interesting game design rather than complexity. As long as there are new mechanics and playstyles to explore, new civs make for a fun addition. If they're mostly revisiting existing concepts then perhaps the new civs aren't making the game that much better.
Of the recently introduced civs, I think they've done a good job introducing new ideas with the Inca and US. Personally I find Sweden a bit redundant, like a European Japan with a house boom and faster stronger muskets. From what I've seen so far the African civs are also bringing some cool new ideas to the table.
At a tournament level I guess it's a bit different since players need to thoroughly understand the common matchups for each civ they want play and there are more matchups. Then again, some matchups are clearly favored one way or another so they're not that likely to occur.
I would say that the limiting factor is interesting game design rather than complexity. As long as there are new mechanics and playstyles to explore, new civs make for a fun addition. If they're mostly revisiting existing concepts then perhaps the new civs aren't making the game that much better.
Of the recently introduced civs, I think they've done a good job introducing new ideas with the Inca and US. Personally I find Sweden a bit redundant, like a European Japan with a house boom and faster stronger muskets. From what I've seen so far the African civs are also bringing some cool new ideas to the table.
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: May 6, 2021
- ESO: esuck
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
tic tac toe imo
If I were a petal
And plucked, or moth, plucked
From flowers or pollen froth
To wither on a young childās
Display. Fetch
Me a ribbon, they, all dead
Things scream.
And plucked, or moth, plucked
From flowers or pollen froth
To wither on a young childās
Display. Fetch
Me a ribbon, they, all dead
Things scream.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I disagree that complexity keeps new players away. New players expect to face civs they're not familiar with, and they would not change their build or strategy regardless of the opposing civ (you know, the "mills in age 1" build).Squamiger wrote: That said, I definitely think part of why aoe2 has been more successful over the years is because it's just easier to get into for a new player. The civs are all sort of copy-pasted versions of the same thing with slight changes, and aesthetic differences. I can definitely see how aoe3 must just be extremely overwhelming for a new player. Not only do you have to learn totally new build orders and mechanics every time you want to try a different civ, but good luck on the quicksearch ladder when you 80-90% of the time you are playing against units you've never seen before and have no idea how to counter them! In order to stand a chance in multiplayer you basically have to become pretty familiar with every civ, which means playing and learning nearly every civ to a certain level.
If you're talking about PR 5+ where players might do something resembling an actual build, I still disagree.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Legoļ»æ
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mar 1, 2015
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Ive reached my max already. If I had more time Maybe i would have liked theese new civs.
With sweden and inca i thought: not gonna have time to learn them but Eventually ill figure out how to play against them.
Then USA. I figured: no time for this. Just hope i never vs them.
Now 2 more new civs. I just gave up.
With sweden and inca i thought: not gonna have time to learn them but Eventually ill figure out how to play against them.
Then USA. I figured: no time for this. Just hope i never vs them.
Now 2 more new civs. I just gave up.
Dead hunts cant walk....
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
same, i no longer have the time required to keep my knowledge up competitively, but don't feel like being a totally casual player either.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
The two new civs are also artificially very complex so it doesn't help.
Personally, I'm not sure I like this extra layers of complexity with new mechanics etc. I think there was still room to fit the new civs in the set of existing mechanics by just tweaking numbers. Of course that doesn't sell as much.
Personally, I'm not sure I like this extra layers of complexity with new mechanics etc. I think there was still room to fit the new civs in the set of existing mechanics by just tweaking numbers. Of course that doesn't sell as much.
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mar 1, 2015
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Ye i rather be a casual scrub in aoe4 then.harcha wrote:same, i no longer have the time required to keep my knowledge up competitively, but don't feel like being a totally casual player either.
Dead hunts cant walk....
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
You, my friend, are a casual scrub in aoe 3 too.Victor_swe wrote:Ye i rather be a casual scrub in aoe4 then.harcha wrote:same, i no longer have the time required to keep my knowledge up competitively, but don't feel like being a totally casual player either.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I think the time people invest into the game is a bigger factor on complexity than the design brought to the table by the devs. USA is not frankly that complex as soon as you understand some of its underlying mechanics.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Yup, it looks fun and all, but I think the old model was better.
It's just too much for too much. You need to pause the game 15 minutes before each age up. :p
It's just too much for too much. You need to pause the game 15 minutes before each age up. :p
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Mar 20, 2017
- ESO: speedflyer
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
It should have been the case tho... every DLC was a mess. Also not sure healthy and good for the game are a good definition of sweden. it should be 1) balance 2) add content imoiNcog wrote:I think the time people invest into the game is a bigger factor on complexity than the design brought to the table by the devs. USA is not frankly that complex as soon as you understand some of its underlying mechanics.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
I hope Zoi and his team of faithful minions can stop demonizing people
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
You want your cake and to eat it too if you seriously expect new civilizations to be added to the game with good balance at the same time.speedflyer wrote:It should have been the case tho... every DLC was a mess. Also not sure healthy and good for the game are a good definition of sweden. it should be 1) balance 2) add content imoiNcog wrote:I think the time people invest into the game is a bigger factor on complexity than the design brought to the table by the devs. USA is not frankly that complex as soon as you understand some of its underlying mechanics.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
I think there's an ongoing, pervasive mentality in the AOE3 community, where people will never be thankful for the good things that we have. Namely: active investment from Microsoft instead of moesbar and a struggle to keep AOE3 alive with EP anti-cheat/balance splitting the community.
We have a playerbase.
We have new civilizations.
We have tournaments.
We have content creators on Twitch/Youtube.
We have Microsoft and a developer behind the game.
The developer has actively worked with EP/ESOC staff.
The community is no longer split.
Moesbar is not something we even THINK about anymore.
Is balance off/wonky? Yes. I will easily take that for all the aforementioned perks. Yes, it is healthy to have that.
I'm just asking people to get a perspective on what is good and what isn't.
- oxaloacetate
- Dragoon
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Apr 4, 2015
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
+1000. Well said.iNcog wrote:You want your cake and to eat it too if you seriously expect new civilizations to be added to the game with good balance at the same time.speedflyer wrote:It should have been the case tho... every DLC was a mess. Also not sure healthy and good for the game are a good definition of sweden. it should be 1) balance 2) add content imoiNcog wrote:I think the time people invest into the game is a bigger factor on complexity than the design brought to the table by the devs. USA is not frankly that complex as soon as you understand some of its underlying mechanics.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
I think there's an ongoing, pervasive mentality in the AOE3 community, where people will never be thankful for the good things that we have. Namely: active investment from Microsoft instead of moesbar and a struggle to keep AOE3 alive with EP anti-cheat/balance splitting the community.
We have a playerbase.
We have new civilizations.
We have tournaments.
We have content creators on Twitch/Youtube.
We have Microsoft and a developer behind the game.
The developer has actively worked with EP/ESOC staff.
The community is no longer split.
Moesbar is not something we even THINK about anymore.
Is balance off/wonky? Yes. I will easily take that for all the aforementioned perks. Yes, it is healthy to have that.
I'm just asking people to get a perspective on what is good and what isn't.
We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Mar 20, 2017
- ESO: speedflyer
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I dont want civilisation being added and balanced at the same time , i wanted them to first balance the game :)iNcog wrote:You want your cake and to eat it too if you seriously expect new civilizations to be added to the game with good balance at the same time.speedflyer wrote:It should have been the case tho... every DLC was a mess. Also not sure healthy and good for the game are a good definition of sweden. it should be 1) balance 2) add content imoiNcog wrote:I think the time people invest into the game is a bigger factor on complexity than the design brought to the table by the devs. USA is not frankly that complex as soon as you understand some of its underlying mechanics.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
I think there's an ongoing, pervasive mentality in the AOE3 community, where people will never be thankful for the good things that we have. Namely: active investment from Microsoft instead of moesbar and a struggle to keep AOE3 alive with EP anti-cheat/balance splitting the community.
We have a playerbase.
We have new civilizations.
We have tournaments.
We have content creators on Twitch/Youtube.
We have Microsoft and a developer behind the game.
The developer has actively worked with EP/ESOC staff.
The community is no longer split.
Moesbar is not something we even THINK about anymore.
Is balance off/wonky? Yes. I will easily take that for all the aforementioned perks. Yes, it is healthy to have that.
I'm just asking people to get a perspective on what is good and what isn't.
Also , most of good/active players just stopped playing this game , may i thank DE for this ? I'm waiting around 8 mn each time to get +0 and this during 4 hour , thanks DE again i guess ? This show how big the playerbase is... no 1 is active in top 300 in team and prob the same in 1v1.
Active investment in adding new civs that you'll pay for sure , that's now 2 months since the latest update ... idk if it's active , but the game is still in a terrible shape
We have a player base of beginners
we have unbalanced civilisation for now
we had tourney before , and better ones imo
Also please get your facts .. Moesbar is not something we even THINK about anymore. This happened , more than one time. But since you are very active you know it.
I'm not denying they added cool stuff on DE , but overall this game is a mess
I hope Zoi and his team of faithful minions can stop demonizing people
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
KING you dropped your crowniNcog wrote:You want your cake and to eat it too if you seriously expect new civilizations to be added to the game with good balance at the same time.speedflyer wrote:It should have been the case tho... every DLC was a mess. Also not sure healthy and good for the game are a good definition of sweden. it should be 1) balance 2) add content imoiNcog wrote:I think the time people invest into the game is a bigger factor on complexity than the design brought to the table by the devs. USA is not frankly that complex as soon as you understand some of its underlying mechanics.
Now, try to play a Japan mirror on Siberia in 2007, then you will find an incredible complex match up.
The game is not going to be figured out with the introduction of new civs, nor should it be. That's healthy and good for the game. Otherwise we may as well argue that AOE3 should have never had TAD/TWC civs and just stayed in its 2005 vanilla state with good balance.
I think there's an ongoing, pervasive mentality in the AOE3 community, where people will never be thankful for the good things that we have. Namely: active investment from Microsoft instead of moesbar and a struggle to keep AOE3 alive with EP anti-cheat/balance splitting the community.
We have a playerbase.
We have new civilizations.
We have tournaments.
We have content creators on Twitch/Youtube.
We have Microsoft and a developer behind the game.
The developer has actively worked with EP/ESOC staff.
The community is no longer split.
Moesbar is not something we even THINK about anymore.
Is balance off/wonky? Yes. I will easily take that for all the aforementioned perks. Yes, it is healthy to have that.
I'm just asking people to get a perspective on what is good and what isn't.
mad cuz bad
- Jets
- Dragoon
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Nov 19, 2019
- ESO: SsJetstream
- Clan: FPL
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I'd like to see a roster of civs based on groups that represent some correlation between their region, kinda (it could mean that they just share architecture sets for their buldings, or there's some historical influence between them)
-West Europe (British, Dutch, French & USA merely because of the architecture sets)
-Mediterranean (Ottomans, Portuguese, Spanish + one revolted civ that came from the previous mentioned)
-East Europe (Germans, Russians, and Swedes + one neighbour civ that came from the previous mentioned).
-Native Americans (Aztecs, Haudenosaunee, Lakota, Inca)
-Asians (Chinese, Indians, Japanese + one more)
-Africans (Hauda, Ethiopeans +2 other civs)
Fixed groups of 4 civs. That's what I think is the limit this roster can expand to without becoming aoe2. In terms of complexity, I hope they don't go crazy again with another expansion, there are a lot of stuff to tweak and edit without creating a whole new resource or mechanic. Not every civ has to be France of course, and neither they have to have complex age ups, buff, buildings and cards. If the devs just tried to get back to the basics then perhaps less could mean more, in terms of complexity and gameplay. Take a look at Wars of liberty civs, they took simple things and created new civs. Like aging with and instead of . Or having auto-spawning fishing boats, or mixing european civs with native-like big buttons mechanincs, buildings that spawn trees, explorer-like vills.
-West Europe (British, Dutch, French & USA merely because of the architecture sets)
-Mediterranean (Ottomans, Portuguese, Spanish + one revolted civ that came from the previous mentioned)
-East Europe (Germans, Russians, and Swedes + one neighbour civ that came from the previous mentioned).
-Native Americans (Aztecs, Haudenosaunee, Lakota, Inca)
-Asians (Chinese, Indians, Japanese + one more)
-Africans (Hauda, Ethiopeans +2 other civs)
Fixed groups of 4 civs. That's what I think is the limit this roster can expand to without becoming aoe2. In terms of complexity, I hope they don't go crazy again with another expansion, there are a lot of stuff to tweak and edit without creating a whole new resource or mechanic. Not every civ has to be France of course, and neither they have to have complex age ups, buff, buildings and cards. If the devs just tried to get back to the basics then perhaps less could mean more, in terms of complexity and gameplay. Take a look at Wars of liberty civs, they took simple things and created new civs. Like aging with and instead of . Or having auto-spawning fishing boats, or mixing european civs with native-like big buttons mechanincs, buildings that spawn trees, explorer-like vills.
- AndiAOE
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Nov 5, 2020
- ESO: mk8by8bcity
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Personally i think they should explore the existing concepts a bit more first. Why doesnt africa civs not just use the export mechanic, while expanding the mechanic for all the export civs.
Also make civs which lack diversity (namely TWC civs) ...give them more cards. THey have notable less cards than all civs...especially the water is really poor for those civs (ESPECIALLY FUCKING INCA - 2 DIFFERENT SHIPS ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NICE FUCKING ROCK PAPER SCISSORS). So you could give some deph to existing civs, while also giving them the same mechanics.
In this case the way i would ve approached it: Give them a war chief, maybe dances and combine it with export. Also give all the export/ natives some additional cards. So you improve the existing one trick pony civs, while also keeping the new civs easy to get into. Or something among those lines
Also make civs which lack diversity (namely TWC civs) ...give them more cards. THey have notable less cards than all civs...especially the water is really poor for those civs (ESPECIALLY FUCKING INCA - 2 DIFFERENT SHIPS ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NICE FUCKING ROCK PAPER SCISSORS). So you could give some deph to existing civs, while also giving them the same mechanics.
In this case the way i would ve approached it: Give them a war chief, maybe dances and combine it with export. Also give all the export/ natives some additional cards. So you improve the existing one trick pony civs, while also keeping the new civs easy to get into. Or something among those lines
Link to my Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUYSgP ... H3TZI2GmLw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUYSgP ... H3TZI2GmLw
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Cringe tbh ngln0el wrote:KING you dropped your crowniNcog wrote:You want your cake and to eat it too if you seriously expect new civilizations to be added to the game with good balance at the same time.Show hidden quotes
I think there's an ongoing, pervasive mentality in the AOE3 community, where people will never be thankful for the good things that we have. Namely: active investment from Microsoft instead of moesbar and a struggle to keep AOE3 alive with EP anti-cheat/balance splitting the community.
We have a playerbase.
We have new civilizations.
We have tournaments.
We have content creators on Twitch/Youtube.
We have Microsoft and a developer behind the game.
The developer has actively worked with EP/ESOC staff.
The community is no longer split.
Moesbar is not something we even THINK about anymore.
Is balance off/wonky? Yes. I will easily take that for all the aforementioned perks. Yes, it is healthy to have that.
I'm just asking people to get a perspective on what is good and what isn't.
- badger_prince
- Musketeer
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Jul 21, 2020
- ESO: badger_prince
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I like variety in civs and I am glad we got some new ones (omg 2005). But obviously you can't expand this infinitely without making it prohibitive to learn.
I'd like variant-Civs to be explored,
A regional variety of an existing civ. Maybe exchange some cards for new ones, mix up the unit roster. Give one different ability. Or just tweak the crate start of the variants.
Boom. More variety, less learning. Keep the game interesting and open.
I'd like variant-Civs to be explored,
A regional variety of an existing civ. Maybe exchange some cards for new ones, mix up the unit roster. Give one different ability. Or just tweak the crate start of the variants.
Boom. More variety, less learning. Keep the game interesting and open.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
Personally, I don't have time to learn all the new content. For me, the threshold to start learning it becomes higher as well because the amount of new content is getting more and more. (I do really appreciate the time Microsoft puts in this game though, no misunderstanding.)
However, that's my story. People with more time I think have the opposite story.
However, that's my story. People with more time I think have the opposite story.
My AoE3 YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MCJimAgeofEmpiresIII
My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_
Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_
Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
- Plantinator
- Dragoon
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Feb 24, 2020
- ESO: Plantinator
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
AndiAOE wrote:Personally i think they should explore the existing concepts a bit more first. Why doesnt africa civs not just use the export mechanic, while expanding the mechanic for all the export civs.
Probably becuz the biggest african Export for centuries has been humans.
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity this game offers us?
I think that is an unfortunately common misconception due to how world history is often looked at and taught through a European lens. Under that lens, Africa is simply "the place where the slaves came from".Plantinator wrote:Probably becuz the biggest african Export for centuries has been humans.
In part, I think that's because Europeans didn't have direct contact with sub-Saharan Africans until the 15th century. Goods that were exported from those regions arrived in Europe through the hands of North African or Arab muslim traders. Even so, the names of certain places such as Gold Coast or Ivory Coast still show what those areas were known for when the Portuguese and others started trading with African societies.
When it comes to the Haussa, examles of important trade goods were salt and gold, alongside goods such as leather and certain spices. If anybody is interested in a deeper look, I would recommend this Extra History series on neighboring Mali (I don't know of a similarly good and accessible video on the Haussa themselves), particularly the videos about their society and Mansa Musa's wealth.
When it comes to slaves, I think it's important to distinguish between chattel slavery conducted largely by Europeans and their local suppliers from the 18th century, and earlier forms of slavery in both Muslim and Christian societies. There is a pretty wide range, from indentured servitude due to a debt, serfs tied to their land and landlord, prisoners (including prisoners of war) sentenced to harsh forced labor, enslaved administrators (scribes, some government officials), and so forth.
There were certainly African rulers who benefited from chattel slavery, at least temporarily, usually by conducting slave raids on neighboring groups and selling those slaves on to Europeans. However, to my knowledge, this form of organized slavery as a mass-market trade did not exist prior to the transatlantic slave trade and the demand for slave labor by colonists and plantation owners of European descent in the Americas.
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: May 6, 2021
- ESO: esuck
Re: What would we accept as maximum complexity in this game?
Maybe connect four
If I were a petal
And plucked, or moth, plucked
From flowers or pollen froth
To wither on a young childās
Display. Fetch
Me a ribbon, they, all dead
Things scream.
And plucked, or moth, plucked
From flowers or pollen froth
To wither on a young childās
Display. Fetch
Me a ribbon, they, all dead
Things scream.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests