What makes you like Age 4 more then 1-3?

[Soccer]

I am playing Age 2 and love the graphics on 3. Waiting for Age 4 to be on a discount.

What do you love about Age 4? Especially in comparrison to 2?

[Crumb]

The campaign was very enjoyable and the production and use of historical doco types videos was really well done. I hope they release some more campaigns for the other civs in the future.

[Lotor13]

I forgot about military units - I like active unity ability - English longbowmen pallisade, or Mongol Mangudais shooting while moving

Also compare to AoE2, different civs have different apperence for generic units: Arabic Spearmen look different than English Spearmen ; that is what I do not like in AoE2 with non-European civs, especially African, south asian and american civs (Aztecs) all have generic european soldiers

[Lotor13]

引用自 Alexej：

While its true when it comes to economics, some buildings and unique mechanics, its total opposite on military side - you actually have less options here as everybody has pretty much access to each units with all techs, so you dont have civs, that are terrible as cavalery and good at infantery etc. You pretty much can play every one of them in the same way.

Did You try to play Mongols vs Chinese in AoE2 and AoE4, and compare the difference?

引用自 Alexej：

Of course they have their unique units and techs, but they dont compare with how in AOE2 some civs didnt have access to updates beyond first age for example, making specific units unusable for them. Here everyone can do everything, some are just little better at doing it, but thats it.

There are very few civs in AoE2 without specific acces to unit update - "to be terrible in something"
Spanish do not have crossbowmen, Turks do not have updated spearmen and skirmishers, Persians do not have Two-handed swordsmen, Saracens do not have Cavaliers, but most civs have acces to crossbowmen, Cavaliers, chsmpions...

I reccomend to play mentioned Mongols and Chinese in AoE2, You can play both civilisation exactly same, and it is with most civs

[Sir Moisty Capybara]

引用自 karoten2：

I forgot about military units - I like active unity ability - English longbowmen pallisade, or Mongol Mangudais shooting while moving

Also compare to AoE2, different civs have different apperence for generic units: Arabic Spearmen look different than English Spearmen ; that is what I do not like in AoE2 with non-European civs, especially African, south asian and american civs (Aztecs) all have generic european soldiers

those abilities were few and in between.

AoE3 DE has way more ways to play with units with its formations, bonuses, charged abilities and special buttons.

As for generic soldiers, in one way I can agree, in another production value and amount of content that is possible to create having already preset unit models is way higher with AoE2. It is just easier to actually make DLC without spending that much funding.

There is reason why for example AoE3 DE gets units that uses AoE2 voice overs.

Also AoE2 already had many plans for way more extended features for each civ, but they knew that amount of balance issues that will occur and not very fun gameloops of some of them would make playing certain civs like chore. Abbassids here were prime example of that having just 2 landmarks [idk if madrasah now counts as landmarks, but they should].

引用自 karoten2：

引用自 Alexej：

While its true when it comes to economics, some buildings and unique mechanics, its total opposite on military side - you actually have less options here as everybody has pretty much access to each units with all techs, so you dont have civs, that are terrible as cavalery and good at infantery etc. You pretty much can play every one of them in the same way.

Did You try to play Mongols vs Chinese in AoE2 and AoE4, and compare the difference?

引用自 Alexej：

Of course they have their unique units and techs, but they dont compare with how in AOE2 some civs didnt have access to updates beyond first age for example, making specific units unusable for them. Here everyone can do everything, some are just little better at doing it, but thats it.

There are very few civs in AoE2 without specific acces to unit update - "to be terrible in something"
Spanish do not have crossbowmen, Turks do not have updated spearmen and skirmishers, Persians do not have Two-handed swordsmen, Saracens do not have Cavaliers, but most civs have acces to crossbowmen, Cavaliers, chsmpions...

I reccomend to play mentioned Mongols and Chinese in AoE2, You can play both civilisation exactly same, and it is with most civs

Because there was good reason for Mongols and Chinese feeling the same. AoE4 has to go out of its way in weird quirk implementation to make certain civs just balanced. I remember cheese with Mongol TC just attacking other TC while it was way easier than even Persian douche. Of course AOK had its Teuton douche.

Not only access to units [which is minuscule sometimes] but also to upgrades makes those civs different. Lacking bracer makes civ far worse at archery range, lacking final armor for cavalry make civs that could be potentially great horse civs not that great. There is way many ventures that someone can get with AoE2 designs, while AoE4 design is more forced. Units have specifical bonuses against one to another and designers enforced the direct paper - scissor - stone counters, where in AoE2 it was more soft.

[Large C]

civs are unique civs. amazing inmersive batlles, outstanding graphics ( needs good pc). much better civ constructor (one building next to other doesnt mean you are making a wall, units pass trough). requirements to advance in age are much mor well designed with special uniqe buildings. it's a top game.
only bad is aoe2 players many have old pc and this game needs new gen micro lots of raam and nice video card

[Hamid Scooter]

mods

[Elriadon]

What I prefer about AoE 4 compared to AoE 2:

- Infantry is actually viable and archers don't dominate.

- Civilizations are much more diverse and they all have their own unit appearances and architecture sets, Malian villagers don't wear european clothing, HRE knight looks different than an English knight, Mongol buildings look way different than the Chinese ones etc.

- Units don't get stuck on each other nearly as often.

- No real "trash" units

- Neutral marketplace to trade without an ally as a default thing instead of being limited to certain maps

- Gold resource is much less limited.

- Monks work better here.

- You don't need to keep reseeding farms,

- No quickwalling, housewalls and need to lure boars to the town center.


What I prefer about AoE 2:

- The music is much better in AoE 2, AoE 4 music feels like background noise in comparison and I can't really point out a single memorable track.

- Graphics overall look better and more polished, AoE 4 still seems unfinished graphically in some areas, units somehow feel "floaty", the arrow "physics" in AoE 4 look incredibly silly,

- The campaigns in AoE 2 are much better (atleast the newer ones).

- You can't queue a gate to be built on a wall until the villagers actually start building the wall (unlike AoE 2).

- If you queue up multiple farms to be built in AoE 4, the villagers will first build all of them and then start farming instead of immediately starting to farm while the rest builds the other queued farms like in AoE 2.



What I prefer about AoE4 compared to AoE 3

- The pace of the game is slower.

- The civilizations seem better designed.

- Static defenses are much more useful.

- Buildings don't have arbitrary limits (except landmarks and a few unique ones).

- Naval Combat isn't just about who has the most ships.

- Home City Shipment card decks mean that you might basically have no chance simply because your opponent's deck counters yours, no such thing in AoE 4. Their absence also makes the game more accessible.


What I prefer about AoE 3:

- Civilizations overall are more unique (the expansion ones atleast, the base game ones are of a comparable level of difference as AoE 4).

- Siege weapons don't move on their own, they actually have crews and are drawn by horses. Their unpacking animations are fast and somewhat believable without affecting their usability. Seriously, AoE 4 is a step backwards in this area.

- The campaigns are still better than the AoE 4 ones.

- Native Settlements are a very interesting gameplay element, even if they make the game much harder to balance.

- AoE 3 has overall more complexity, which also means more possible strategies.

- The physics seem to be better in AoE 3.


What I prefer about AoE 4 compared to AoE 1:

- Basically everything (pathfinding especially).


What I prefer about AoE 1:

- Music is much better than AoE 4 music.

- It has Romans.

[jonoliveira12]

引用自 karoten2：

引用自 Alexej：

While its true when it comes to economics, some buildings and unique mechanics, its total opposite on military side - you actually have less options here as everybody has pretty much access to each units with all techs, so you dont have civs, that are terrible as cavalery and good at infantery etc. You pretty much can play every one of them in the same way.

Did You try to play Mongols vs Chinese in AoE2 and AoE4, and compare the difference?

引用自 Alexej：

Of course they have their unique units and techs, but they dont compare with how in AOE2 some civs didnt have access to updates beyond first age for example, making specific units unusable for them. Here everyone can do everything, some are just little better at doing it, but thats it.

There are very few civs in AoE2 without specific acces to unit update - "to be terrible in something"
Spanish do not have crossbowmen, Turks do not have updated spearmen and skirmishers, Persians do not have Two-handed swordsmen, Saracens do not have Cavaliers, but most civs have acces to crossbowmen, Cavaliers, chsmpions...

I reccomend to play mentioned Mongols and Chinese in AoE2, You can play both civilisation exactly same, and it is with most civs

If you play Chinese and Mongols exactly the same, in AoE2, you are actively choosing to lose.
Chinese are generalists, with one of the biggest Tech Trees in the game, and a, increasing discount to techs.
Mongols are hyper specialized to use only Scouts, Cav Archers, Mangudai and Siege, anything else being considered dead tech or auxiliaries against some civs.

Unironically, Mongols in AoE2 play closer to how Mongols actually fought, than Mongols in AoE4, where they are a Spearman + Outpost Rush civ.

[Lotor13]

引用自 Eltar：

- If you queue up multiple farms to be built in AoE 4, the villagers will first build all of them and then start farming instead of immediately starting to farm while the rest builds the other queued farms like in AoE 2.

Check this

https://youtu.be/lSBomyq3VbY

[Lotor13]

引用自 jonoliveira12：

Unironically, Mongols in AoE2 play closer to how Mongols actually fought, than Mongols in AoE4, where they are a Spearman + Outpost Rush civ.

https://youtu.be/td9fLjK8w5Y