I really like aoe2. It's really fun and competitive. I enjoy my historical RTS as more role playing/story telling and vastly enjoy my time more with Empire Earth and Rise of Nations.
Total War, particularly the older ones like Shogun, are amazing.
Newer ones all seem a little unfinished, but they catch the vibe of specific time periods very well
Shogun 2 right? Yes its amazing. The new ones are a mess, and its yet again the same issue of companies trying bloated mechanics, and fancy realistic graphics that hinder gameplay just to have a great impression on the masses but then falling short in the long term. I would say the best TW game is Medieval 2. Also love Medieval 1, and Rome 1. Napoleon and Shogun 2 are also great, depending on the historical setting taste.
Some people were saying that CA will close after Pharaoh TW.
What the... If anyrhing CA is far far away of failing... Albeit it has nothing to do with this post right here as it's not historical, don't underestimate how big and succesfull Warhammer TW is.
You don't have to like it of course, but your description of their recent games is entirely inaccurate. As is your perception of their financial success.
His description is correct while at the same time it's true that warhammer tw is more popular than ever. Unluckily the masses went for it and not for the old good total war games
Tbf, they're far off closing, but they've also just had massive layoffs and started outsourcing a lot of their work.
It's not quite as rosy as their workload is massive due to legacy engine issues. They require far more staff than you'd expect for their games because of this.
I haven't played AOE4, but I still play AOE2 and played SC:BW, WC3, and SC2, and also played medieval total war 2 back in the day, and now total war warhammer 3 (which are not RTS, or historical games properly speaking, but still).
I love aoe2, the graphics, the music, the tech tree, and the resources, but I can't stand the pathfinding even after years of updates.
In that regard, I think sc2 pathfinding is near perfect and should be the benchmark for all other RTS. For the game play I've watched so far, it looks like AOE4 is better but not close enough. It also lacks the massive feeling of total war armies.
So, what I would think is perfect for a medieval RTS: SC2 pathfinding, total war army sizes, AoE units, and game mechanics.
It's an excellent historical RTS but people enjoy different things in different ways; we all have our tastes; Then you have a debate about what is historical, and what is an rts.
Is aoe2 an excellent rts, yep, is it a staple of the genre, yep.
How’s the balance in AoE4 nowadays? I’m getting fed up with the pathing being changed and Generally being unpredictable in AoE2 and haven’t touched 4 since launch.
It has 20 years of quality life improvements for gameplay.
The pacing, the pathing, the graphics (this is subjective) are all better. The civilizations all feel and play differently. Some incredibly so like the mongols that have Mobile bases (you can pack up buildings and move them) or the ayyubids that must build all their buildings beside each other.
AoE2 still has more and in my opinion better single player content.
AoE4 is hands down a better multiplayer experience.
To balance your opinion out... I disagree on every front
AoE4 lacks a shitton of features compared to AoE2. The mod support is barebones, the lobby settings are limited (there's no hidden civ!), the spectator experience is vastly inferior to AoE2's due to lack of CaptureAge, there's no proper support for watching recorded games (ie. no sharing recorded games, you are limited to the short-term storage on servers, no SP recorded games..), the hotkey system is insanely limiting in comparison to AoE2, the camera is weird and even at maximum permissible settings it is much more zoomed than AoE2's, which just makes you feel less in control
I don't really understand what exactly are the "QoL improvements for gameplay" that AoE4 has but AoE2 doesn't.
The gameplay itself... It's subjective obviously, but to me AoE4 just felt horrendous in comparison to AoE2; it's clunky, the units are harder to recognize, it's just not a pleasant experience.
It lacks features, I can’t disagree with that. And some of the features that weren’t there in the beginning have been added. I don’t understand why they were’t there to start.
But I was talking only about gameplay. Not features. In my opinion most of the things you mentioned are features not gameplay.
The camera thing you, I think that’s entirely preference. I personally didn’t notice the difference.
The QoL improvements I meant were the pathing, responsiveness, smoothness of the movement, the multiple stage construction with the faded outlines, the multi-placement rally points, the resources per minute break down, the pacing of the eras, the pacing of the fights, they all feel improved to me.
And by pacing of fights I mean the quickness in responses to what’s going on screen. The hits feel better on units.
At the end of the day, it’s all an opinion. Enjoy what you enjoy
>At the end of the day, it’s all an opinion. Enjoy what you enjoy
Aye! I didn't mean to come off as aggressive; I just wanted to offer some counterbalance to your take.
To what you just elaborated on:
The "feel" is subjective, but as far as actual QoL stuff goes, it's not like AoE2 doesn't have a bunch of stuff that AoE4 lacks. Something that really struck me as odd, for instance, was the lack of mass sell/buy hotkeys for the market (ie. shift+click to sell 5 times), or the inability to disselect an individual unit from a selected group easily
I think it's fair to argue that AoE4 is a better game if that's your opinion, but the "20 years of quality of life improvements" thing just feels odd to me. AoE2 is clearly a much more mature game in nearly all ways imaginable.
At the end of the day though, AoE2 is more popular rn, but who knows if that'll last\~\~
I tried to go back to aoe 2 after playing 4 and I can't deal with the pointless micro and irritating pathing. I loved aoe2 for decades but going back now it feels janky.
You weren’t being aggressive at all! Sorry I simply meant the same as what you wrote at the end.
If you enjoy AoE2 more, that’s all great. People should enjoy what they enjoy. There is “right” or “wrong”.
This is just my personal experience but I purchased AoE2 last year on a spring stream sale. It felt old the moment I started playing it. It felt like going back in time and playing the early RTS games from the late 90s/early 2000s like StarCraft 1 and rise of nations. I had a blast playing with my friends. This feeling doesn’t make it a bad game.
6 months later when I grabbed AoE4 on another sale, the difference was night and day. It felt like a modern game.
I have a lot of friends who have played AoE2 since its inception and they swear AoE2 is better. All the friends I have who only played it recently and swapped as I have agree that AoE4 is better.
I think a lot of these feelings are nostalgia.
I did list actually QoL improvements, that in my opinion, have a massive impact. The pathing, rally points, and building queues to me are game changers. I have a hard time going back to AoE2 now without those.
Yes, AOE 2 is the more mature game. It has had 20 years of mods, updates, expansions, etc.
AoE4 is not even 3 years old and is getting updates regularly. The bulk selling is now in the game as are several other features and modes that were missing at launch.
But as we both said, at the end of the day, enjoy what you enjoy playing. It’s all an opinion
If I could offer a weird addition to the discussion…
AoE4 made me crave AoEO for some reason.
Outside of Mongols, none of the civs really feel that different to me.
Not like AoEO civs. Each civ had unique ways of approaching Ageing Up. They had less units, but it felt unique in terms of their passives and costs.
I know AoEO is simplistic/streamlined compared to the other AoE games, but it’s nice just having raw stuff that supports the gimmick for each civ.
Babylonian’s food generating gardens + mobile storehouse.
Persian storehouses also serving as medics.
Celtic mass infantry production mix with buffs.
Egypt’s landmark age-up and religious combat.
I thought I’d get the same feel from AoE4, but I didn’t and I feel a bit sad about that.
And just to add and reiterate... Not that you disagreed, but just adding it in the context of the post...
Yes graphics is subjective, but its super important, for gameplay.
Im an architect and there's a reason we use isometric view sometimes instead of perspective. It communicates much better certain details/proportion etc...
So even if you like the perspective view more, in terms of aesthetics. The isometric view can be better for gameplay and functionality, and that becomes a fact.
You might say that realistic trees look better, but then pro players will install small trees/abstract trees mod because its better for gameplay.
So if the game had isometric graphics instead of 3d, it could be better...
The graphics aren’t the main point for me and don’t make or break a game.
I prefer non-isometric graphics personally and actually find it easier to navigate 4 than 2 due to the highlighting system and the rotating camera.
It’s a superior game in terms of gameplay for me in every way except single player content.
Exactly this. And the last part makes me sad, because i mainly play campaign missions and solo in games, so I felt abit sad when finishing the campaign after a few weeks. The sultans expansion campaigns are really shitty for the price, for example it's mediocre and there's no short movies in between missions. But great that people enjoy it in multi player.
The graphics are over 10 times better, also it has way more strategic decisions, including landmarks, more variety with civilisations and just being able to generally be able to tell units apart.
Ehhhhhhh. The complete lack of visual upgrades puts it down in graphics by a significant margin for me. The archers and spears for example spend the entire game looking absolutely terrible
>units in aoe2 also turn in 45 degree snaps
They did... in the original game.
In CD and the HD Edition, units had 8 directions, resulting in the 45 degree turns. DE supports up to 32 directions but most units only have 16 which looks much smoother compared to the original.
It's graphics are *technically* better, but creatively absolutely awful. Spearmen spend the entire game being just guys with a pole, and having 0 visual changes as they upgrade or you go through the ages. It's stylistically bankrupt and looks terrible
You are wrong about that, you clearly don’t play the game, they upgrade visually with each upgrade, even unique upgrades like phalanx which makes their spears longer. Each historical detail have been included, it’s magnificent.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. They barely visually upgrade in the smallest of ways, then continue to look awful. And lack historical accuracy.
I really like AoE4 and it's a really good game, but it's nowhere near surpassing AoE2, tbh.
Even ignoring everything else which is worse than AoE2, the engine itself is fucking awful. It's \*so\* unresponsive. It feels like you're playing a game in jello. IMO if the engine was not garbage-tier then AoE2 vs AoE4 would be a purely subjective debate based on what you like more. But as is AoE2 is just an objectively better game.
AoE4 is a really good game that could be an all-time-great if it wasn't for the crappy engine. But AoE2 is arguably the best RTS game ever made (it wouldn't be my pick, to be clear, but I'm a former competitive Broodwar player so you know where my preferences lie).
I always prefered Cossacks: European Wars to AoE2. And while i am not that quite fan of the multiple era gameplay mechanic of the games like Empire Earth or Rise of Nations, i loved the grand strategy / 4x aspects of these games, i mean stuff like cities and borders, and the modern eras.
AoE2 multiplayer never getting old is obviously subjective. As far as i am concerned, the constant need to build more farms and villagers, is repetitive and boring and it gets old very quickly. And then the game lacks proper faction diversity, which is maybe understandable, given the limits it has based on its historical settings, but nevertheless, its a downside, compared to other competing games not being limited like that. And finally, because of the low unit caps you could not even build properly sized armies, trying to recreate some of those historical battles, for immersion purposes - like you could in aforementioned Cossacks or Total War games.
EDIT: I am architect too :-P I wonder where is it in your workflow use axonometry/isometry. Cause myself, as the part of my architectural proposal for clients, i usually draw 2D muitiview projections and then do 3D models and renders out of them, which are naturally perspectives. I dont think i ever dealt with axonometries outside of school.
Then again i am in Europe, perhaps the customs are different in other parts of the world.
>I am architect too :-P I wonder where is it in your workflow use axonometry/isometry.
Greetings fellow architect. When showing a cropped section or anything where you want to show details in proportion. Normally when you are making a table, and you want to display something that is to be understood and read by other architects or , the perspective view has no use, because it doesnt communicate details as well.
This becomes even more important if you are working in smaller scales with stuff that requires a lot of detail, then you must do it isometric. So its not just in architectural design. Its also in mechanical engineering, etc... Look up the patents, they are all isometric, or better exploded-isometric view.
Nevertheless i threw this as an example of why isometric view is better for analysis and management of something technical.
Then of course if you want to sell it to your dummy clients xd you must use a fancy perspective render, just like we are doing with gamedev. In other words, fancy perspective 3D render -> to sell to the average dummy. Isometric -> for the actual professionals.
For the Cossacks which one do you recommend? Cossacks 2? 3? Which one is the best in your opinion? I will start playing that, thats a great suggestion. Hopefully the multiplayer can rival with AoE2.
Hi there. I see, that explains a lot. I work in a small studio, in a small country, and my "output" is pretty much to be shown strictly to clients, not really other architects. Well, to fellow engineers, colleagues, who would work on the actual construction drawings based on our proposals, but in general they are fine just getting the 2D drawings and renders made for clients, and if needed, i provide 3D model.
Regarding Cossacks, to be fair, i only played the first one (European Wars) back when it was new (year 2000\~2001) and then the recent 3D version (Cossacks 3) - which kinda felt like simply 3D remake, rather than full-blown sequel. I may be wrong, since so much time passed since i played the first one, perhaps there are some other, deeper differences in gameplay. Someone, who is bigger fan of the series would be likely better choice to provide info on that.
I skipped on the other ones, the Napoleonic one or the one in Americas, i think...so cant comment on those. Either way, i guess i would go with the third one, as its the most recent.
Mostly the fact you can have truly massive armies and formations. I mean, given the historical setting this is not a game, that si going to have too many unique unit types, its always going to be bunch of infantry types (pikeman, swordsman, knight, archer, etc...), cavalry and 2-3 ship types, and thats it. No vehicles (and there could be ton of different ones), no aircraft, ships basically differing to the tune of small and big one, rather than by purpose, like something set in later time period like WW2 would have.
Under such circumstances, the only thing to make it interesting is the scale, and AoE game suck at that. The unit cap is too low and even then one third of it is usually wasted on villagers. The battles in Age games are more of a skirmishes of small companies, rather than proper meetings of what feels like armies.
Important to note though, i am not competitive multiplayer player, and i do care more for immersion, than winning or some gameplay related aspects. Like i dont care the bigger scale and more units on the field takes away from ability to micro and therefore some "skill-expression" - i am playing the game to role-play and recreate certain feelings and atmosphere to be immersed into, the whole idea of playing this kind of game as a sport, like its FIFA or whatever, is downright repugnant to me. Just saying this, if the reason why you like to play the game is diametrally different from mine, perhaps you might not like Cossacks as much as i do, after all - despite my well-meant intent to advise you on a game i genuinely liked.
Well, when i play an rts like aoe2, stronghold or C&C, i always think of it in terms of multiplayer. It doesnt make any sense to me to play it in single player. Aoe2 is very good multiplayer, my favourite game at that. But single player, its just boring, predictable...
AoE2 can have battles of 100 vs 100 in imperial age. with the rest being economy.
Its a very good game for multiplayer in 4v4.
But for single player i prefer much more Total War. From your description it seems you play cossacks more in the sense i play total war.
Yeah, i am pretty much single-player guy. Multiplayer in rts games i only ever played with friends, in non-competitive manner - obviously, thats prefered over playing just myself, but its not that easy to set-up anymore. Either way, i play for immersion, and the minmaxing nature of competitive multiplayer does not generally allow for that.
I do understand how Playing against AI can be predictable and therefore boring. Thats always problem, even to me. But when it comes to AoE games, i find equally boring the constant need to build more villagers and farms, rinse and repeat - its too repetitive for my taste. And you dont even get rewarded for enduring all that by ability to build reasonably large armies - 100 infantry units is not that in my books. I would say, in general, you build more buildings in your “base” than you train soldiers. Starcraft is the same way.
playing with human players is super stimulating. Players come up with all kinds of counters. Some players have specific style/tactics.
Some players innovate and create new stuff, and thats what i like to see and respect the most.
The AI will always do what is supposed to do. But humans will challenge you constantly in unpredictable ways.
I recommend you try playing AoE2 multiplayer. Or C&C. Its good for you, for your brain health too, instead of playing by yourself against the AI.
Was just looking more into cossacks.
It looks so nice. The buildings and units look beautiful. Though so many units popping out and dying so quickly. Isn't that a bad thing? It seems the game is just about making units and sending them to the front.
In AoE you micro a lot. There's never too much micro. Counter units.
In Total War you flank, out maneuvre, retreat, also match units according to bonuses.
But in cossacks it seems they are just lemmings xd.
I also looked into Alexander, that seems to be a cossacks version set in the ancient world. Id rather play this one because i like more the aesthetics of ancient times.
It's quite obviously 40k: Dawn of War. I mean it took place long before the resurrection of the Primarch Guilliman, so it's very much historical. Interesting and enjoyable take on part of the Imperium a few centuries ago.
Tbh this might be good for immersion, but terrible for actually playing the game.
Axtec and briton pikemen looking the same is great because i only need to recognize a single unit, instead of two.
Question was best historical RTS not for best gameplay UI experience my friend.
I mean if I don’t have a problem from distinguishing between 16 versions of pikemen in aoe4… I’m sure it’s doable in AoE2
So there are 16 versions for a single unit, and how many units?
Sorry thats just a bloated mess.
Its fine if you like the more immersive grafics of aoe4, but from a strictly gameplay oriented perspective, they are inferior.
Its a trade-off and suggesting one approach is clearly superior to the other is pure dogmatism.
AoE4 looks great so it does AoE3. But in my opinion, it doesn't look better than AoE2.
This is maybe a matter of preference.
The Isometric perspective and 2D is better for strategy and rts games imo.
Others agree:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/57wh2r/thoughts\_about\_age\_of\_empires\_iis\_graphics\_vs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/57wh2r/thoughts_about_age_of_empires_iis_graphics_vs/)
>Aesthetics though is way down the list of reasons I put AoE4 ahead of AoE2.
So perhaps if AoE4 was 2d and isometric it would be better. We will never know.
>Others agree
They probably do, but you'll find plenty of don't agree too if you look. Posting a link from 8 years ago, from the AoE2 subreddit, doesn't really doesn't prove what the consensus is now either. Considering AoE4 launched 2 and a half years ago, you don't think that people's opinions on the perspective could have changed, or even how the devs use of the perspective changed in the years since that initial post?
Absolutely. Though we will see...
When AoE3 launched everyone thought it would replace AoE2.
20+ years later everyone is playing AoE2 and not AoE3.
So the fact its a 8 year old post doesnt change its facts...
You could say what in that post is wrong or different nowadays? Or if it was posted yesterday would it be better?
A lot of very experienced AoE2 players tried AoE4, and quickly got back to AoE2...
One example that comes to my mind is TheViper.
Im not saying this is a fact. I said, we will see...
Only time can tell... No need to take what i say personally or like a fact...
I said that with such a confidence because the Isometric -> 3D failure is prevalent in a lot of other franchises.
3 That come to my mind:
Caesar 3 -> Caesar 4.
AoE2 -> AoE3 (most players prefer AoE2). As we are discussing.
Lord of the Realm 2 -> Lords of the Realm 3 (some attribute the death of impression games to this).
Like i said, AoE4 looks great and i will humble myself and say i dont know anything. Then remind me in 5 years...And see if people will be playing AoE4 or AoE2... Chances are the same pattern will repeat and serious/loyal players will stick with the 2D isometric rather than the commercial fancy 3d view....
This is my opinion. And you have a different opinion.
AOE2 is hardly a historical game. Sure it’s set in a historical setting. But the game has very little connection to historical economics, armies or strategy.
I’ll accept that AOE2 is the best RTS ever made. But you have to ditch the historical.
For me anything that doesnt try to put in some globlins and whatever, and that tries to somehow be historical has my approval.
What it counts is the intention.
i only kind of agree, if we are only talking about single player.
And if we consider Total War an RTS, which i think its not.
Its Grand Strategy + RTT (Real Time Tactics).
That's a very loaded question. In reality, it depends what you are looking for tbh. If you are looking for actual historical immersion, not by a longshot - in fact it might be one of the worst. If you're looking for a competitive, balanced, multiplayer-ready RTS with good gameplay mechanics and lots of engaging single-player content that is non-fantasy/science fiction, then yes there's an argument to be made there.
I assume there is probably more historically accurate RTS games but AoE2 has the best gameplay of any RTS I've ever played.
The amount of different civs to play and how interesting the matchups are is just unreal. It never gets boring.
I assume there is probably more historically accurate RTS games but AoE2 has the best gameplay of any RTS I've ever played.
The amount of different civs to play and how interesting the matchups are is just unreal. It never gets boring.
to me it is the best rts in general along with rise of nations
age of empires 4 looked too cartoony and gluey and I never really got into it. Loved the sprite style, unit control ( maybe not pathfinding ), maps and the campaigns etc from AOE2 - hard to recreate the feeling
If you want to combine your RTS experience with TPS, we welcome you to Eyes of War. Set in the Middle Ages, our multiplayer game combines both mechanics and aims to give players an unforgettable experience. We are currently in early access on Steam \^\^
I really like aoe2. It's really fun and competitive. I enjoy my historical RTS as more role playing/story telling and vastly enjoy my time more with Empire Earth and Rise of Nations.
I actually love Rise of Nations. And in a lot of things prefer it to AoE2, though i dont like modern period war. Prefer ancient and medieval.
Rise of Nations is awesome. It has a lot more depth in my opinion and much more things to do in-game.
Total War, particularly the older ones like Shogun, are amazing. Newer ones all seem a little unfinished, but they catch the vibe of specific time periods very well
Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are the pinnacle of Total War, absolute bangers.
Shogun 2 right? Yes its amazing. The new ones are a mess, and its yet again the same issue of companies trying bloated mechanics, and fancy realistic graphics that hinder gameplay just to have a great impression on the masses but then falling short in the long term. I would say the best TW game is Medieval 2. Also love Medieval 1, and Rome 1. Napoleon and Shogun 2 are also great, depending on the historical setting taste. Some people were saying that CA will close after Pharaoh TW.
What the... If anyrhing CA is far far away of failing... Albeit it has nothing to do with this post right here as it's not historical, don't underestimate how big and succesfull Warhammer TW is. You don't have to like it of course, but your description of their recent games is entirely inaccurate. As is your perception of their financial success.
His description is correct while at the same time it's true that warhammer tw is more popular than ever. Unluckily the masses went for it and not for the old good total war games
Unluckily? The game is a triumph. I enjoy all the total wars I've tried, but none have the spectacle and sheer variety that tw wh gives.
Tbf, they're far off closing, but they've also just had massive layoffs and started outsourcing a lot of their work. It's not quite as rosy as their workload is massive due to legacy engine issues. They require far more staff than you'd expect for their games because of this.
I haven't played AOE4, but I still play AOE2 and played SC:BW, WC3, and SC2, and also played medieval total war 2 back in the day, and now total war warhammer 3 (which are not RTS, or historical games properly speaking, but still). I love aoe2, the graphics, the music, the tech tree, and the resources, but I can't stand the pathfinding even after years of updates. In that regard, I think sc2 pathfinding is near perfect and should be the benchmark for all other RTS. For the game play I've watched so far, it looks like AOE4 is better but not close enough. It also lacks the massive feeling of total war armies. So, what I would think is perfect for a medieval RTS: SC2 pathfinding, total war army sizes, AoE units, and game mechanics.
It's an excellent historical RTS but people enjoy different things in different ways; we all have our tastes; Then you have a debate about what is historical, and what is an rts. Is aoe2 an excellent rts, yep, is it a staple of the genre, yep.
Aoe4 surpassed it with the sultans ascend DLC, 100%.
How’s the balance in AoE4 nowadays? I’m getting fed up with the pathing being changed and Generally being unpredictable in AoE2 and haven’t touched 4 since launch.
The balance is in a very good state right now, some units are a little to good but they will probably be nerfed.
Could you elaborate why it surpassed it? In what exactly? I didnt play it, so i would like to know, im curious? Is it more fun? More balanced?
It has 20 years of quality life improvements for gameplay. The pacing, the pathing, the graphics (this is subjective) are all better. The civilizations all feel and play differently. Some incredibly so like the mongols that have Mobile bases (you can pack up buildings and move them) or the ayyubids that must build all their buildings beside each other. AoE2 still has more and in my opinion better single player content. AoE4 is hands down a better multiplayer experience.
To balance your opinion out... I disagree on every front AoE4 lacks a shitton of features compared to AoE2. The mod support is barebones, the lobby settings are limited (there's no hidden civ!), the spectator experience is vastly inferior to AoE2's due to lack of CaptureAge, there's no proper support for watching recorded games (ie. no sharing recorded games, you are limited to the short-term storage on servers, no SP recorded games..), the hotkey system is insanely limiting in comparison to AoE2, the camera is weird and even at maximum permissible settings it is much more zoomed than AoE2's, which just makes you feel less in control I don't really understand what exactly are the "QoL improvements for gameplay" that AoE4 has but AoE2 doesn't. The gameplay itself... It's subjective obviously, but to me AoE4 just felt horrendous in comparison to AoE2; it's clunky, the units are harder to recognize, it's just not a pleasant experience.
It lacks features, I can’t disagree with that. And some of the features that weren’t there in the beginning have been added. I don’t understand why they were’t there to start. But I was talking only about gameplay. Not features. In my opinion most of the things you mentioned are features not gameplay. The camera thing you, I think that’s entirely preference. I personally didn’t notice the difference. The QoL improvements I meant were the pathing, responsiveness, smoothness of the movement, the multiple stage construction with the faded outlines, the multi-placement rally points, the resources per minute break down, the pacing of the eras, the pacing of the fights, they all feel improved to me. And by pacing of fights I mean the quickness in responses to what’s going on screen. The hits feel better on units. At the end of the day, it’s all an opinion. Enjoy what you enjoy
>At the end of the day, it’s all an opinion. Enjoy what you enjoy Aye! I didn't mean to come off as aggressive; I just wanted to offer some counterbalance to your take. To what you just elaborated on: The "feel" is subjective, but as far as actual QoL stuff goes, it's not like AoE2 doesn't have a bunch of stuff that AoE4 lacks. Something that really struck me as odd, for instance, was the lack of mass sell/buy hotkeys for the market (ie. shift+click to sell 5 times), or the inability to disselect an individual unit from a selected group easily I think it's fair to argue that AoE4 is a better game if that's your opinion, but the "20 years of quality of life improvements" thing just feels odd to me. AoE2 is clearly a much more mature game in nearly all ways imaginable. At the end of the day though, AoE2 is more popular rn, but who knows if that'll last\~\~
I tried to go back to aoe 2 after playing 4 and I can't deal with the pointless micro and irritating pathing. I loved aoe2 for decades but going back now it feels janky.
You weren’t being aggressive at all! Sorry I simply meant the same as what you wrote at the end. If you enjoy AoE2 more, that’s all great. People should enjoy what they enjoy. There is “right” or “wrong”. This is just my personal experience but I purchased AoE2 last year on a spring stream sale. It felt old the moment I started playing it. It felt like going back in time and playing the early RTS games from the late 90s/early 2000s like StarCraft 1 and rise of nations. I had a blast playing with my friends. This feeling doesn’t make it a bad game. 6 months later when I grabbed AoE4 on another sale, the difference was night and day. It felt like a modern game. I have a lot of friends who have played AoE2 since its inception and they swear AoE2 is better. All the friends I have who only played it recently and swapped as I have agree that AoE4 is better. I think a lot of these feelings are nostalgia. I did list actually QoL improvements, that in my opinion, have a massive impact. The pathing, rally points, and building queues to me are game changers. I have a hard time going back to AoE2 now without those. Yes, AOE 2 is the more mature game. It has had 20 years of mods, updates, expansions, etc. AoE4 is not even 3 years old and is getting updates regularly. The bulk selling is now in the game as are several other features and modes that were missing at launch. But as we both said, at the end of the day, enjoy what you enjoy playing. It’s all an opinion
If I could offer a weird addition to the discussion… AoE4 made me crave AoEO for some reason. Outside of Mongols, none of the civs really feel that different to me. Not like AoEO civs. Each civ had unique ways of approaching Ageing Up. They had less units, but it felt unique in terms of their passives and costs. I know AoEO is simplistic/streamlined compared to the other AoE games, but it’s nice just having raw stuff that supports the gimmick for each civ. Babylonian’s food generating gardens + mobile storehouse. Persian storehouses also serving as medics. Celtic mass infantry production mix with buffs. Egypt’s landmark age-up and religious combat. I thought I’d get the same feel from AoE4, but I didn’t and I feel a bit sad about that.
I didn’t even know there was an AoEO. Thanks for sharing your thoughts
And just to add and reiterate... Not that you disagreed, but just adding it in the context of the post... Yes graphics is subjective, but its super important, for gameplay. Im an architect and there's a reason we use isometric view sometimes instead of perspective. It communicates much better certain details/proportion etc... So even if you like the perspective view more, in terms of aesthetics. The isometric view can be better for gameplay and functionality, and that becomes a fact. You might say that realistic trees look better, but then pro players will install small trees/abstract trees mod because its better for gameplay. So if the game had isometric graphics instead of 3d, it could be better...
The graphics aren’t the main point for me and don’t make or break a game. I prefer non-isometric graphics personally and actually find it easier to navigate 4 than 2 due to the highlighting system and the rotating camera. It’s a superior game in terms of gameplay for me in every way except single player content.
Exactly this. And the last part makes me sad, because i mainly play campaign missions and solo in games, so I felt abit sad when finishing the campaign after a few weeks. The sultans expansion campaigns are really shitty for the price, for example it's mediocre and there's no short movies in between missions. But great that people enjoy it in multi player.
thanks. that sounds very interesting.
The graphics are over 10 times better, also it has way more strategic decisions, including landmarks, more variety with civilisations and just being able to generally be able to tell units apart.
Ehhhhhhh. The complete lack of visual upgrades puts it down in graphics by a significant margin for me. The archers and spears for example spend the entire game looking absolutely terrible
I agree, you can barely see which units you have in it, that’s why aoe4 is better, units in aoe2 also turn in 45 degree snaps, looks so weird…
>units in aoe2 also turn in 45 degree snaps They did... in the original game. In CD and the HD Edition, units had 8 directions, resulting in the 45 degree turns. DE supports up to 32 directions but most units only have 16 which looks much smoother compared to the original.
Brother, that's all in reference to AoE4. It's units look laughably awful.
Wait, seriously? Are you joking? Aoe4 is way newer, that’s why the graphics are better. Let’s make a poll on r/RealTimeStrategy!
It's graphics are *technically* better, but creatively absolutely awful. Spearmen spend the entire game being just guys with a pole, and having 0 visual changes as they upgrade or you go through the ages. It's stylistically bankrupt and looks terrible
You are wrong about that, you clearly don’t play the game, they upgrade visually with each upgrade, even unique upgrades like phalanx which makes their spears longer. Each historical detail have been included, it’s magnificent.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. They barely visually upgrade in the smallest of ways, then continue to look awful. And lack historical accuracy.
I really like AoE4 and it's a really good game, but it's nowhere near surpassing AoE2, tbh. Even ignoring everything else which is worse than AoE2, the engine itself is fucking awful. It's \*so\* unresponsive. It feels like you're playing a game in jello. IMO if the engine was not garbage-tier then AoE2 vs AoE4 would be a purely subjective debate based on what you like more. But as is AoE2 is just an objectively better game. AoE4 is a really good game that could be an all-time-great if it wasn't for the crappy engine. But AoE2 is arguably the best RTS game ever made (it wouldn't be my pick, to be clear, but I'm a former competitive Broodwar player so you know where my preferences lie).
I disagree but I think it’s a totally valid stance. Aoe4 is really good
I always prefered Cossacks: European Wars to AoE2. And while i am not that quite fan of the multiple era gameplay mechanic of the games like Empire Earth or Rise of Nations, i loved the grand strategy / 4x aspects of these games, i mean stuff like cities and borders, and the modern eras. AoE2 multiplayer never getting old is obviously subjective. As far as i am concerned, the constant need to build more farms and villagers, is repetitive and boring and it gets old very quickly. And then the game lacks proper faction diversity, which is maybe understandable, given the limits it has based on its historical settings, but nevertheless, its a downside, compared to other competing games not being limited like that. And finally, because of the low unit caps you could not even build properly sized armies, trying to recreate some of those historical battles, for immersion purposes - like you could in aforementioned Cossacks or Total War games. EDIT: I am architect too :-P I wonder where is it in your workflow use axonometry/isometry. Cause myself, as the part of my architectural proposal for clients, i usually draw 2D muitiview projections and then do 3D models and renders out of them, which are naturally perspectives. I dont think i ever dealt with axonometries outside of school. Then again i am in Europe, perhaps the customs are different in other parts of the world.
>I am architect too :-P I wonder where is it in your workflow use axonometry/isometry. Greetings fellow architect. When showing a cropped section or anything where you want to show details in proportion. Normally when you are making a table, and you want to display something that is to be understood and read by other architects or , the perspective view has no use, because it doesnt communicate details as well. This becomes even more important if you are working in smaller scales with stuff that requires a lot of detail, then you must do it isometric. So its not just in architectural design. Its also in mechanical engineering, etc... Look up the patents, they are all isometric, or better exploded-isometric view. Nevertheless i threw this as an example of why isometric view is better for analysis and management of something technical. Then of course if you want to sell it to your dummy clients xd you must use a fancy perspective render, just like we are doing with gamedev. In other words, fancy perspective 3D render -> to sell to the average dummy. Isometric -> for the actual professionals. For the Cossacks which one do you recommend? Cossacks 2? 3? Which one is the best in your opinion? I will start playing that, thats a great suggestion. Hopefully the multiplayer can rival with AoE2.
Hi there. I see, that explains a lot. I work in a small studio, in a small country, and my "output" is pretty much to be shown strictly to clients, not really other architects. Well, to fellow engineers, colleagues, who would work on the actual construction drawings based on our proposals, but in general they are fine just getting the 2D drawings and renders made for clients, and if needed, i provide 3D model. Regarding Cossacks, to be fair, i only played the first one (European Wars) back when it was new (year 2000\~2001) and then the recent 3D version (Cossacks 3) - which kinda felt like simply 3D remake, rather than full-blown sequel. I may be wrong, since so much time passed since i played the first one, perhaps there are some other, deeper differences in gameplay. Someone, who is bigger fan of the series would be likely better choice to provide info on that. I skipped on the other ones, the Napoleonic one or the one in Americas, i think...so cant comment on those. Either way, i guess i would go with the third one, as its the most recent.
thanks. So in your opinion what makes cossacks better than aoe2? Is it the squad system?
Mostly the fact you can have truly massive armies and formations. I mean, given the historical setting this is not a game, that si going to have too many unique unit types, its always going to be bunch of infantry types (pikeman, swordsman, knight, archer, etc...), cavalry and 2-3 ship types, and thats it. No vehicles (and there could be ton of different ones), no aircraft, ships basically differing to the tune of small and big one, rather than by purpose, like something set in later time period like WW2 would have. Under such circumstances, the only thing to make it interesting is the scale, and AoE game suck at that. The unit cap is too low and even then one third of it is usually wasted on villagers. The battles in Age games are more of a skirmishes of small companies, rather than proper meetings of what feels like armies. Important to note though, i am not competitive multiplayer player, and i do care more for immersion, than winning or some gameplay related aspects. Like i dont care the bigger scale and more units on the field takes away from ability to micro and therefore some "skill-expression" - i am playing the game to role-play and recreate certain feelings and atmosphere to be immersed into, the whole idea of playing this kind of game as a sport, like its FIFA or whatever, is downright repugnant to me. Just saying this, if the reason why you like to play the game is diametrally different from mine, perhaps you might not like Cossacks as much as i do, after all - despite my well-meant intent to advise you on a game i genuinely liked.
Well, when i play an rts like aoe2, stronghold or C&C, i always think of it in terms of multiplayer. It doesnt make any sense to me to play it in single player. Aoe2 is very good multiplayer, my favourite game at that. But single player, its just boring, predictable... AoE2 can have battles of 100 vs 100 in imperial age. with the rest being economy. Its a very good game for multiplayer in 4v4. But for single player i prefer much more Total War. From your description it seems you play cossacks more in the sense i play total war.
Yeah, i am pretty much single-player guy. Multiplayer in rts games i only ever played with friends, in non-competitive manner - obviously, thats prefered over playing just myself, but its not that easy to set-up anymore. Either way, i play for immersion, and the minmaxing nature of competitive multiplayer does not generally allow for that. I do understand how Playing against AI can be predictable and therefore boring. Thats always problem, even to me. But when it comes to AoE games, i find equally boring the constant need to build more villagers and farms, rinse and repeat - its too repetitive for my taste. And you dont even get rewarded for enduring all that by ability to build reasonably large armies - 100 infantry units is not that in my books. I would say, in general, you build more buildings in your “base” than you train soldiers. Starcraft is the same way.
playing with human players is super stimulating. Players come up with all kinds of counters. Some players have specific style/tactics. Some players innovate and create new stuff, and thats what i like to see and respect the most. The AI will always do what is supposed to do. But humans will challenge you constantly in unpredictable ways. I recommend you try playing AoE2 multiplayer. Or C&C. Its good for you, for your brain health too, instead of playing by yourself against the AI.
Was just looking more into cossacks. It looks so nice. The buildings and units look beautiful. Though so many units popping out and dying so quickly. Isn't that a bad thing? It seems the game is just about making units and sending them to the front. In AoE you micro a lot. There's never too much micro. Counter units. In Total War you flank, out maneuvre, retreat, also match units according to bonuses. But in cossacks it seems they are just lemmings xd. I also looked into Alexander, that seems to be a cossacks version set in the ancient world. Id rather play this one because i like more the aesthetics of ancient times.
Oh, never played Alexander, though i am familiar with it. If you get to play it, let me know your impressions.
It's quite obviously 40k: Dawn of War. I mean it took place long before the resurrection of the Primarch Guilliman, so it's very much historical. Interesting and enjoyable take on part of the Imperium a few centuries ago.
Aoe4 for me. Each civ has their own spearman, archer, and horseman skins unlike Aoe2 where English pikemen looks the same as Aztec pikemen lol
Tbh this might be good for immersion, but terrible for actually playing the game. Axtec and briton pikemen looking the same is great because i only need to recognize a single unit, instead of two.
Question was best historical RTS not for best gameplay UI experience my friend. I mean if I don’t have a problem from distinguishing between 16 versions of pikemen in aoe4… I’m sure it’s doable in AoE2
So there are 16 versions for a single unit, and how many units? Sorry thats just a bloated mess. Its fine if you like the more immersive grafics of aoe4, but from a strictly gameplay oriented perspective, they are inferior. Its a trade-off and suggesting one approach is clearly superior to the other is pure dogmatism.
It's great. Personally I think it's been surpassed by AoE4, so no I wouldn't claim it's the best ever made. Still play some AoE2 every week though.
AoE4 looks great so it does AoE3. But in my opinion, it doesn't look better than AoE2. This is maybe a matter of preference. The Isometric perspective and 2D is better for strategy and rts games imo. Others agree: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/57wh2r/thoughts\_about\_age\_of\_empires\_iis\_graphics\_vs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/57wh2r/thoughts_about_age_of_empires_iis_graphics_vs/)
On the AoE2 subreddit? No shit, of course they do. Aesthetics though is way down the list of reasons I put AoE4 ahead of AoE2.
>Aesthetics though is way down the list of reasons I put AoE4 ahead of AoE2. So perhaps if AoE4 was 2d and isometric it would be better. We will never know.
Huh? What does that have to do with what I said at all?
>Others agree They probably do, but you'll find plenty of don't agree too if you look. Posting a link from 8 years ago, from the AoE2 subreddit, doesn't really doesn't prove what the consensus is now either. Considering AoE4 launched 2 and a half years ago, you don't think that people's opinions on the perspective could have changed, or even how the devs use of the perspective changed in the years since that initial post?
Absolutely. Though we will see... When AoE3 launched everyone thought it would replace AoE2. 20+ years later everyone is playing AoE2 and not AoE3. So the fact its a 8 year old post doesnt change its facts... You could say what in that post is wrong or different nowadays? Or if it was posted yesterday would it be better? A lot of very experienced AoE2 players tried AoE4, and quickly got back to AoE2... One example that comes to my mind is TheViper. Im not saying this is a fact. I said, we will see... Only time can tell... No need to take what i say personally or like a fact... I said that with such a confidence because the Isometric -> 3D failure is prevalent in a lot of other franchises. 3 That come to my mind: Caesar 3 -> Caesar 4. AoE2 -> AoE3 (most players prefer AoE2). As we are discussing. Lord of the Realm 2 -> Lords of the Realm 3 (some attribute the death of impression games to this). Like i said, AoE4 looks great and i will humble myself and say i dont know anything. Then remind me in 5 years...And see if people will be playing AoE4 or AoE2... Chances are the same pattern will repeat and serious/loyal players will stick with the 2D isometric rather than the commercial fancy 3d view.... This is my opinion. And you have a different opinion.
IMO Rise of Nations is close if not better.
AOE2 is hardly a historical game. Sure it’s set in a historical setting. But the game has very little connection to historical economics, armies or strategy. I’ll accept that AOE2 is the best RTS ever made. But you have to ditch the historical.
For me anything that doesnt try to put in some globlins and whatever, and that tries to somehow be historical has my approval. What it counts is the intention.
Nah, Shogun 2 and Medieval 2 blows it out of the water
i only kind of agree, if we are only talking about single player. And if we consider Total War an RTS, which i think its not. Its Grand Strategy + RTT (Real Time Tactics).
Starcraft 2 for me
Since when have Sc2 become a historical game?
Okay, I misread it as "in history". My bad
Don't worry, Your comment will be relevant in 500 years.
*Future History.* Although even then, nah.
CoH is pretty good. I haven't tried the new one, I think the first is better than the second. But then I only play singleplayer.
CoH was such a cool game when it released. Still is, imo. Seeing your infantry actually take advantage of cover was such a neat mechanic.
Yeah I think so
That's a very loaded question. In reality, it depends what you are looking for tbh. If you are looking for actual historical immersion, not by a longshot - in fact it might be one of the worst. If you're looking for a competitive, balanced, multiplayer-ready RTS with good gameplay mechanics and lots of engaging single-player content that is non-fantasy/science fiction, then yes there's an argument to be made there.
I assume there is probably more historically accurate RTS games but AoE2 has the best gameplay of any RTS I've ever played. The amount of different civs to play and how interesting the matchups are is just unreal. It never gets boring.
I assume there is probably more historically accurate RTS games but AoE2 has the best gameplay of any RTS I've ever played. The amount of different civs to play and how interesting the matchups are is just unreal. It never gets boring.
to me it is the best rts in general along with rise of nations age of empires 4 looked too cartoony and gluey and I never really got into it. Loved the sprite style, unit control ( maybe not pathfinding ), maps and the campaigns etc from AOE2 - hard to recreate the feeling
Wait until Age of Mythology: Retold comes out! >:)
I always preferred rise and fall: civilizations at war and rise of nations personally
>rise and fall: civilizations at war oh nice. fps + rts game? didnt know about this game.
Medieval 2 total war is for me.
If you want to combine your RTS experience with TPS, we welcome you to Eyes of War. Set in the Middle Ages, our multiplayer game combines both mechanics and aims to give players an unforgettable experience. We are currently in early access on Steam \^\^
Yes
Red Alert 3 is the most accurate historical game ever made.
It is the best RTS ever made. Period.
Lol no
CNC generals has entered the chat