why ai sucks in IV and not III?

[Thundersnapper]

I really enjoy playing AOE 3 as AI is great and it has good balance but in AOE 4 they constantly makes random attacks from every direction making me spend more time at barracks creating troops all the time and never getting time for economy and structures. why cant developers just copy AOE 3 AI? this makes this game really bad, mean really bad...its like waving away flyes all the time. But worst is then all resurses is empty at the end and you cant fend of AI anymore or both me and AI cant attack more...stagnation to oblivion...

[lauruswolfe]

the ai is not bad but some of their build choices are silly

look at all these lumber camps
https://imgur.com/a/P6LAKGB

[MetaSamsara]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Thundersnapper:

I really enjoy playing AOE 3 as AI is great and it has good balance but in AOE 4 they constantly makes random attacks from every direction making me spend more time at barracks creating troops all the time and never getting time for economy and structures. why cant developers just copy AOE 3 AI? this makes this game really bad, mean really bad...its like waving away flyes all the time. But worst is then all resurses is empty at the end and you cant fend of AI anymore or both me and AI cant attack more...stagnation to oblivion...

yes its my experience too especially if you play some matchup like mongol vs easy ai japanese they will make you waste time and resources defending against op meta abuse, meanwhile they boom with unlimited APM and become unstoppable. The only way to prevent that is to rush their villagers because they are braindead about defending them when it is critical. After you run out of stone on the map, it is stalemate, whoever was better off and has better micro just wins in sudden death. Especially if you play on the tiny default map sizes.

I really hate this series of changes they made nerfing civs like the french and mongol on late game stone. There should be a way to keep booming during late game for each civ, instead of forcing sudden death. ♥♥♥♥ people whining that games are too long, just play when you have time. 1h30 is plenty for a long game to finish. I'd rather aim for quality games than quantity through meta slaving.

[grand high siegemaster]

You have to be aggressive against AI and they can't do anything, they'll just let you wipe villagers and structures no matter what difficulty they are on. If you let them macro and just wall up they'll always win because they can resource cheat and boom way bigger than you.

This makes sense when you consider how games like AOE are really played. They aren't wave tower defense games. You're meant to be harassing and preventing the large armies from ever being built in the first place.

[Machiavelli]

Too many clowns trying to play this game

[V4.Skunk]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ragnarr Loðbrók:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von V4.Skunk:

Maybe on very easy ai. On the harder difficulty's the AI is constantly attacking you.

actually not

Cope. On any difficulty above normal the AI is constantly sending forces to attack you.

[MetaSamsara]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Narwhal:

You have to be aggressive against AI and they can't do anything, they'll just let you wipe villagers and structures no matter what difficulty they are on. If you let them macro and just wall up they'll always win because they can resource cheat and boom way bigger than you.

This makes sense when you consider how games like AOE are really played. They aren't wave tower defense games. You're meant to be harassing and preventing the large armies from ever being built in the first place.

See that's the bad influence MOBA and Starcraft had on the genre. For me RTS in a theme such as AoE or AoM is more about total freedom to use natural laws in order to strategically win games creatively. It shouldn't be about speedrunning a specific gameplay style into winning by meta superiority. There are very, very few such moments in human history. Only 4 that come to mind for me are metal forging, gunpowder, electricity and telecoms. This type of game should be more about map control in a 4x style but played like a RTS controls. 2nd and 3rd TC adjoined to main TC should be pure heresy in a context of *strategy* for instance but using it to control more of the map for later battles should be encouraged. We also need bigger default map sizes and asymmetry. For asymmetry of maps to be balanced it takes a rebalance of what characteristics define civs stats and development wise. I'm all in favor for more different age up landmarks for each civ that can help surprise opponent every game and every age, along with more expensive age ups whilst military units become less effective against buildings overall but in return siege is tougher too with still nerfed damage but the increased resistance to troops would make it still as strong if not stronger. It would really just shift the perspective on what kind of things are possible in AoE4 without necessarily changing what makes it what it is already. It would only free us from meta slaving.

[Sigismund]

DL the Mod "Unofficial AGS", then do a 30 min treaty...

[grand high siegemaster]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RL is DEAD:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Narwhal:

You have to be aggressive against AI and they can't do anything, they'll just let you wipe villagers and structures no matter what difficulty they are on. If you let them macro and just wall up they'll always win because they can resource cheat and boom way bigger than you.

This makes sense when you consider how games like AOE are really played. They aren't wave tower defense games. You're meant to be harassing and preventing the large armies from ever being built in the first place.

See that's the bad influence MOBA and Starcraft had on the genre. For me RTS in a theme such as AoE or AoM is more about total freedom to use natural laws in order to strategically win games creatively. It shouldn't be about speedrunning a specific gameplay style into winning by meta superiority. There are very, very few such moments in human history. Only 4 that come to mind for me are metal forging, gunpowder, electricity and telecoms. This type of game should be more about map control in a 4x style but played like a RTS controls. 2nd and 3rd TC adjoined to main TC should be pure heresy in a context of *strategy* for instance but using it to control more of the map for later battles should be encouraged. We also need bigger default map sizes and asymmetry. For asymmetry of maps to be balanced it takes a rebalance of what characteristics define civs stats and development wise. I'm all in favor for more different age up landmarks for each civ that can help surprise opponent every game and every age, along with more expensive age ups whilst military units become less effective against buildings overall but in return siege is tougher too with still nerfed damage but the increased resistance to troops would make it still as strong if not stronger. It would really just shift the perspective on what kind of things are possible in AoE4 without necessarily changing what makes it what it is already. It would only free us from meta slaving.

Brother every AOE game plays the same way. MOBA had nothing to do with the rules of AOE. There are SO many games that are like what you're describing. If this game had a shred of realism I wouldn't bother playing it. There are so many 4x or massive war games in a historical theme. I'm just interested in a decent multiplayer experience that takes under 30 minutes.

[FloosWorld]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RL is DEAD:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Narwhal:

You have to be aggressive against AI and they can't do anything, they'll just let you wipe villagers and structures no matter what difficulty they are on. If you let them macro and just wall up they'll always win because they can resource cheat and boom way bigger than you.

This makes sense when you consider how games like AOE are really played. They aren't wave tower defense games. You're meant to be harassing and preventing the large armies from ever being built in the first place.

See that's the bad influence MOBA and Starcraft had on the genre. For me RTS in a theme such as AoE or AoM is more about total freedom to use natural laws in order to strategically win games creatively. It shouldn't be about speedrunning a specific gameplay style into winning by meta superiority. There are very, very few such moments in human history. Only 4 that come to mind for me are metal forging, gunpowder, electricity and telecoms. This type of game should be more about map control in a 4x style but played like a RTS controls. 2nd and 3rd TC adjoined to main TC should be pure heresy in a context of *strategy* for instance but using it to control more of the map for later battles should be encouraged. We also need bigger default map sizes and asymmetry. For asymmetry of maps to be balanced it takes a rebalance of what characteristics define civs stats and development wise. I'm all in favor for more different age up landmarks for each civ that can help surprise opponent every game and every age, along with more expensive age ups whilst military units become less effective against buildings overall but in return siege is tougher too with still nerfed damage but the increased resistance to troops would make it still as strong if not stronger. It would really just shift the perspective on what kind of things are possible in AoE4 without necessarily changing what makes it what it is already. It would only free us from meta slaving.

When Ensemble (the devs of AoE 1-3 and AoM) developed AoE 1, they played tons of Warcraft 1 and 2 in house and thus wanted AoE 1 to be a fast paced MP oriented game. This carried over to 2, Myth and 3. AoE 4 is no different here.

[MetaSamsara]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von FloosWorld:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RL is DEAD:

See that's the bad influence MOBA and Starcraft had on the genre. For me RTS in a theme such as AoE or AoM is more about total freedom to use natural laws in order to strategically win games creatively. It shouldn't be about speedrunning a specific gameplay style into winning by meta superiority. There are very, very few such moments in human history. Only 4 that come to mind for me are metal forging, gunpowder, electricity and telecoms. This type of game should be more about map control in a 4x style but played like a RTS controls. 2nd and 3rd TC adjoined to main TC should be pure heresy in a context of *strategy* for instance but using it to control more of the map for later battles should be encouraged. We also need bigger default map sizes and asymmetry. For asymmetry of maps to be balanced it takes a rebalance of what characteristics define civs stats and development wise. I'm all in favor for more different age up landmarks for each civ that can help surprise opponent every game and every age, along with more expensive age ups whilst military units become less effective against buildings overall but in return siege is tougher too with still nerfed damage but the increased resistance to troops would make it still as strong if not stronger. It would really just shift the perspective on what kind of things are possible in AoE4 without necessarily changing what makes it what it is already. It would only free us from meta slaving.

When Ensemble (the devs of AoE 1-3 and AoM) developed AoE 1, they played tons of Warcraft 1 and 2 in house and thus wanted AoE 1 to be a fast paced MP oriented game. This carried over to 2, Myth and 3. AoE 4 is no different here.

Yes it is simple bias I'm not saying this gameplay is for no one but it's personally not what I want of AoE4 and I voice it, as simple as that. It is no secret that most of the RTS genre was inspired from Warcraft3 which also birthed MOBA genre which is my whole argument ;)
I never liked warcraft3 because of its gameplay flaws. i'm all for heroes combat in pvp, but I find moba maps to be killing my brain neuron by neuron with their simplicity. This is transpiring in AoE4 going for tiny maps meta. We could have a lot bigger maps, and a lot more meaningful expansion and map control aspects to the game without changing what it is today other than units speed and building sizes also. In fact a lot of people complained that the buildings are too small and non immersive. This is another issue transpiring from Starcraft series where buildings are sci-fi and only exist to serve a purpose rather than feel like base building in the artistic sense of appreciation, a sense that historical based lore like AoE could very well develop more into to get more of their own identity in comparison to other RTS games. It is a common critique in today's world to hear that RTS genre whined off and nearly died because the genre failed to evolve and adapt to a wider audience. Not everyone wants to be a math nerd min maxer to win games. Some people want to grow strong through creative, real time adaptative strategy. It's the whole 3 teachings mindset so since we have shaolin monks the least would be to allow a gameplay that fits their background vibe. And it would benefit the whole community really to open up more competitively viable playstyles based on smart map control development rather than knowing how to be first to steamroll the other. That doesn't in essence mean games HAVE to be longer. It just means rebalancing what needs rebalancing. In the end, good changes only happen after good decisions. Being reasonable is how you achieve balance, not being an extreme defender of one specific meta ;) Y'all are just gold or plats and higher fearing that the work you put in computing numbers isn't wasted lol.

[grand high siegemaster]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Diamond 1:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von FloosWorld:

When Ensemble (the devs of AoE 1-3 and AoM) developed AoE 1, they played tons of Warcraft 1 and 2 in house and thus wanted AoE 1 to be a fast paced MP oriented game. This carried over to 2, Myth and 3. AoE 4 is no different here.

Yes it is simple bias I'm not saying this gameplay is for no one but it's personally not what I want of AoE4 and I voice it, as simple as that. It is no secret that most of the RTS genre was inspired from Warcraft3 which also birthed MOBA genre which is my whole argument ;)
I never liked warcraft3 because of its gameplay flaws. i'm all for heroes combat in pvp, but I find moba maps to be killing my brain neuron by neuron with their simplicity. This is transpiring in AoE4 going for tiny maps meta. We could have a lot bigger maps, and a lot more meaningful expansion and map control aspects to the game without changing what it is today other than units speed and building sizes also. In fact a lot of people complained that the buildings are too small and non immersive. This is another issue transpiring from Starcraft series where buildings are sci-fi and only exist to serve a purpose rather than feel like base building in the artistic sense of appreciation, a sense that historical based lore like AoE could very well develop more into to get more of their own identity in comparison to other RTS games. It is a common critique in today's world to hear that RTS genre whined off and nearly died because the genre failed to evolve and adapt to a wider audience. Not everyone wants to be a math nerd min maxer to win games. Some people want to grow strong through creative, real time adaptative strategy. It's the whole 3 teachings mindset so since we have shaolin monks the least would be to allow a gameplay that fits their background vibe. And it would benefit the whole community really to open up more competitively viable playstyles based on smart map control development rather than knowing how to be first to steamroll the other. That doesn't in essence mean games HAVE to be longer. It just means rebalancing what needs rebalancing. In the end, good changes only happen after good decisions. Being reasonable is how you achieve balance, not being an extreme defender of one specific meta ;) Y'all are just gold or plats and higher fearing that the work you put in computing numbers isn't wasted lol.

A lot of your ideas seem like they fit better into more dynamic RTS games like Dune: Spice Wars and not the resource/combat focused ones like AOE. I understand everything you're saying and I don't mind unique games but I'm glad AOE is just simple and to the point.

[Sanxion]

ai is against human and has nothing to do in a computer game that is programmed from human and for human

[Jerico]

I don't know how it possible but AoE4 AI much worst than AoE2. Even with infinity x1000 resources and instant army spam. The ally AI it's a full ♥♥♥♥♥♥ idiot. It totally useless.

[Bash Vondoom]

Ai was the best way for me to train on playing pvp. Your teammate ai will let you down constantly. Hording it's army at its base. Leaving you to fight vs the enemies all alone. Bump their difficulty up to hard and you will learn to build fast and effectively. This is a good way to learn your development skills as most pvp is solo even with allies.

[Plastic Master]

Adan Isgreen once said, they are making an AI that evolves and will become unbeatable.
So far, the AI is retarded at its best. And the worst AI in whole AOE franchise...