Another important factor for the popularity of AoE2 over AoE3 is that AoE2 could run on a potato when it was released and AoE3 struggled to run even on modern machines at the time.

@Othello484

3 жыл бұрын

Yup. I forgot about those bad old days! :)

@clockworkNate

2 жыл бұрын

But at least they beat a first person shooter for best graphics award. Lol

AOE 2 is more beginner friendly in the fact that 95% of the units, building and upgrades are shared between all the civs. In aoe 3 you have to learn more when switching to a new civ. This can be a bit overwhelming and puts a bit of force on staying with one civ. In aoe 3 you learn individual civs in aoe 2 you learn universal strategies.

@hoola_amigos

3 жыл бұрын

As a hardcore AOE3 fan, I will have to agree with you on this one ;)

@andrewtrofimov1027

3 жыл бұрын

I think this is a positive for AoE3, I love AoE2 but doing the same few strategies over and over gets pretty boring. I like the diversity over quantity principle of AoE 3.

@tqhung166

3 жыл бұрын

If you compare to Starcraft 2 for a really extreme example, you will see that Pro SC 2 players only play one race while "pro" AOE 2 players can play any civs

@Glass-Eye25

3 жыл бұрын

Dang I can’t relate lol. I joined a noob aoe2 match and got rushed by knights barely into the second age haha. Idk, aoe2 is complicated for me. Aom and aoe3 is definitely easier for me

@andrewtrofimov1027

3 жыл бұрын

@@Glass-Eye25 AoE 2 has a much bigger learning curve and you have to learn a bunch of random stuff like luring boars, microing your dumb villagers and stuff like that. in AoE3 you just task your villagers to wood and you will get wood, it's way easier and beginner friendly. It also lets you focus more on strategy

4:30 YES, PLEASE! I MISS THAT LAYOUT! I actually knew how the cards related to each other, even though you no longer need to unlock them like that (at least outside of campaign), that layout gave me a good overview of what cards were archer or archaic or musket or wood or whatever without having to memorize the icons or mouse over them.

I think the greater success of AoE2 over AoE3 lies on a few key points: 1. AoE2 came in the Golden Age of RTS, whereas AoE3 came during the decline of the genre. 2. AoE2 appeared in an era were LAN games were huge and it immediately became an afterschool social activity whereas AoE3 came during the transition from LAN to online and the online community culture hadn't fully evolved yet. 3. Card unlocking through experience created an unnecessarily steep entry cost for noobs. 4. A generalized expectation that people expected a clone of AoE2 and people rejected it off the gate when it turned out different. 5. Purchase cost. It was a bit high for teens on a tight budget and that was the target market. 6. The dissapearence of Ensemble relatively soon after its release that deprived it of necessary support and stained it with an aura of failure.

@rockin1014

3 жыл бұрын

Nah it’s cause aoe3 isn’t anywhere near as enjoyable to play. And another big part is that aoe3’s setting to most people is really boring compared to aoe2’s huge range of years and areas even in the original game.

@bryanguerrero6213

3 жыл бұрын

This is actually pretty spot on. And to add on your #4, gamers are the biggest babies. If a release isn’t exactly what they want, before they even try it, they cry about it. Hate to mention a console game for a PC community but the Last of Us 2 is a masterpiece, but the fact the main character of part 1 dies, swayed so many cry babies to not even play the game.

@shrimp19921

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheBelovedRose. “what dictates the decline of RTS?” Probably the fact that RTS aren’t as popular anymore. Aoe2 came out when Starcraft was still the biggest game on the planet.

@arthurdebacker3270

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheBelovedRose. "people generally enjoy chocolate over vanilla" is not a subjective claim though. Someone preferring one game over the other is subjective, large scale data on preference is objective. It's "I prefer AoE3" (subjective) vs "surveys have shown that people prefer AoE2" (objective).

@egemengok6638

3 жыл бұрын

dude Just say aoe 2 more enjoyable than aoe 3 , for me i ve played tons of aoe3 games and after a moment a friend of mine showed me aoe2 and when i saw aoe2 was better , i immediately have stopped playing aoe3

When you love a franchise, you can look over it's faults and love it unconditionally like irl ;>

@ben3129

3 жыл бұрын

I think also you can admit it's faults and still love it,

@xotl2780

3 жыл бұрын

F that kiddie crap. If you love something, hold its feet to the fire every time it pisses you off!

Best description of League ever

@vegannegan9652

3 жыл бұрын

I'm glad I stopped playing that game.

@rodrigomejia953

3 жыл бұрын

Don't do League of Legends, kids.

@stefanandrejcik571

3 жыл бұрын

Definitely

@MP-ut6eb

3 жыл бұрын

@@vegannegan9652 good shit mate. I play it sometimes but not seriously, you see 5 man brand combo is satisfy af. I need my dose of brand 5 manning sometimes 😂😂😂😂😂

The saddest thing is the age of mythology community

@vladimirlagos2688

3 жыл бұрын

I really hope those guys get their definitive edition someday. I never warmed to the game myself, but I would probably buy it if a DE came out.

@satyakisil9711

3 жыл бұрын

Why? They are quite wholesome.

@ghus2046

3 жыл бұрын

AoM 2 will one day bring us all back 😢

@PhoenixStriker1

3 жыл бұрын

Worst part about not having an AoM DE is that my favorite civilizations aren’t balanced properly

@satyakisil9711

3 жыл бұрын

@@ChrissieBear I believe there is a fan-made Aztec mythology based mod being made. Maybe it can be made official later on. And I hope the FE team stays away from the game this time.

32:10 to be fair, in AOE2 DE pro scene players who play ranked they go random 90% of the time, because the fun of the game comes from the point that you have to adapt your strategy with what you get, and what you are up against. In tournaments even you get a civ draft where you pick 7-8 civs no repeats AND home map draft, and get a civ ban and map ban from the opponent. That means a single set will usually involve 15 of the civs of the game and at least 7-8 maps. And then you have to pick a civ depending of the map and what your opponent would pick, and the pick is hidden till the game starts. So going random is a must in the pro-scene in order to get good with all of them.

Another reason aoe3 wasn't as popular is because it required a newer computer to play. I remember when it came out, I was excited to try it. My dad bought it for me (and himself), but our computer couldn't run it, so it wasn't until years later when we got a new computer that I actually was able to play it

Age 2 probably is the better game in almost every way, but it's the civs in Age 3 that really do it for me. The fact they're so fundamentally different adds so much more depth and strategy to the game.

@mjolner6792

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah i still get surprised by some builds and strats. I have many more hours in 2 but this extra depth in civs has always brought me back to 3. In some areas its a very classy game. Just needs a bit more love and polish.

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

3 > 2. It’s not even close.

@ruparavi6409

3 жыл бұрын

@@kingstarscream320 just your opinion

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

@@ruparavi6409 no really?????

@sowishful

3 жыл бұрын

@@kingstarscream320 facts. Age 2 IMO is super slow and boring. Looks like shit indie game.

Not watched the whole thing yet, but quickly in relation to the whole 'intuitive' thing regarding unit counters, Spirit's just talking about which units you would expect to be good at fighting each other by glancing at their physical model, not by going in and reading any of the flavour text or damage modifiers. For instance, based on knowledge we've built up playing various medieval-era combat games we can intuitively guess that a bloke holding a big spear should do well against a guy on horseback, that the guy on horseback will do well against a dude with a bow, and that the dude with the bow should do well against the bloke holding the spear. This isn't true across the board with AOE2 of course, and it's absolutely fair to argue that the hidden attack modifiers are a bad design decision and should be more transparent, but with many units with hidden modifiers it does state their strengths in the tech tree, which I actually find easier to read at a glance than the numbers-based AOE3 stats. When you make the same kind of superficial visual comparison between a musketeer and skirmisher in AOE3 it's not intuitive which unit should counter the other in the same way, that's the only point Spirit is making, not that this is a bad thing in itself but that it maybe messes with players' initial guesses about the units' strengths and weaknesses and forces them to read through all the stats before they can feel comfortable using each unit. Again, he's not saying this makes AOE3 worse than AOE2 (it's definitely better at being transparent) but simply trying to explain why some players were maybe turned off at first, and never bothered giving the game a second look. As a guy who only ever played AOE2 originally, it was specifically this video of Spirit's that caused me to give AOE3 a chance and pick up the Definitive Edition.

@AttiliusRex

3 жыл бұрын

I fully agree. But i kept on playing aoe3 and learned it all. Then came the expansion civs with unique skins and counter units and i just couldnt be bothered reading up on their units and weaknesses so i stopped playing

@primhose

2 ай бұрын

There's also the guesswork in seeing two ranged units available to you, one with Wood (which used to be the "trash" resource) and one with Coin, the latter being stronger in most cases, *except* when matching up against the former.

"I want to move to the next guy to take his points as well." Hey you should play Fatslob.

@zephurwallace9560

3 жыл бұрын

Good idea, Fatslob games are famously short.

When Spirit is talking about the unit counters being unintuitive, he means that the units look similar enough that you can sometimes mistake them for one another, mostly based on the profiles and design. In AoE2, each unit has a very distinct profile and appearance so glancing over a battlefield, you can tell the difference between like Halberdiers and Champions. To him, he just sees 2 different guys with guns, or three different cannons. While I disagree that they aren't necessarily distinct from each other (each unit has their own appearance, stance, and march to distinguish them well enough from each other), he just hasn't learned to recognize the distinctions between them, and is talking to an audience who primarily plays AoE2, so they might have the same problem.

@bobjones9063

3 жыл бұрын

Good comment. I've played AOE3 since it came out, and have never played AOE2, and I have that problem. I can't distinguish between units in 2. Hearing him say that I'm like "how can you confuse them, they; look different, hold their musket/rifles differently, stand and march differently too!" So, your right. Just like with counters, It comes down to what you're use to, and what you bother to learn. Dev's can only help you so much.

@inconemay1441

Жыл бұрын

All the guns/cannons look the same at a first glance. Screw ships though, I give up on differentiating which ship does what and what they're effective against

35:26 The lord makes a mysterious appearance in an aoe3 video. All Hail Lord DauT

@Raiom.

3 жыл бұрын

Amen

As an AoE2 player who got back into AoE3 DE recently, I can tell that the point of "non-intuitive counter" is very true, at least in my case, and is made worse by the fact that some civs have different skins/name for units that have the same role. Infantry in particular is imo a very messy thing to learn, I always end up trying to get a look at my opponent's units stats in the middle or right before a fight because I don't know which counter to use. The main problem here is that the basic counters are hard to tell for a new player in the heat of action, which is made worse by some civ having different base units from the other. You can argue that AoE2 has the same problem with unique units or things like camels or skirms, but the basics counters are obvious for anyone having played a medieval strategy game. And since those units are shared by all the civs, with the same skin, you don't need to learn about new basic units depending on the civ you're facing. Of course with experience and time things get smoother, but sometimes I'm still very confused. Hope this was clear enough lmao, I'm not a native english speaker. Also don't get me wrong, AoE3 is love, AoE3 is life, just giving my two cents o/

@Tonceitoys

3 жыл бұрын

Specially while fighting Aztecs in AoE3, their units really weird me out, I can't tell at a glance which units counter what or what do I need to make to have a decent answer

@Vincrand

3 жыл бұрын

I agree mostly with your post. I still prefer how it is in AoE3 than how it is in AoE2. In AoE3 you may not know what something does at a first glance, but 1 click on that unit tells you everything. In AoE2 I have to search the web while playing the game to know what a unit does (for example the cataphract).

@Joker-yw9hl

3 жыл бұрын

Aye all true. To be fair though if you've played AOE3 since release (before more confusing civs were added) it's pretty easy to know what does what

@vladimirlagos2688

3 жыл бұрын

In AoE3 the Native civs always confuse me, I don't know what they do, and they often look similar.I always have to check, but to the game's credit, you CAN check ingame.

@PhoenixStriker1

3 жыл бұрын

I get this logic, but I would argue Age II isn’t that intuitive either. Sure, archers kill pikes, but skirmishers? Why in the hell would a guy throwing a spear beat a well trained longbow man? Why is cannon artillery easy to dodge, cannon shots are FASTER than arrows and catapults. Age III is confusing, but Age II is no less confusing or counter-intuitive. And worse, Age II gives you LESS info on how units are supposed to be countered.

People can't fathom that Skirmishers use rifles and Musketeers use muskets which are two different sort of guns, used for different roles historically

@BattleBrothersInternational

3 жыл бұрын

@dougbound Have you played TW Napoleon? I think it is a more faithful representation of the combat tactics at the time. And skirms shred heavy infantery in that game too. Mainly because of their longer range and loose formation though.

@AttiliusRex

3 жыл бұрын

Ah yes the american myth about the revolutionary use of skirmishers. Line infantry outshoots skirmishers with concentration of firepower

@BattleBrothersInternational

3 жыл бұрын

@@AttiliusRex I am not talking about the revolution. i am talking about the use of large formations of light infantry in the Napoleonic wars. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmisher#Napoleonic_Wars

@satyakisil9711

3 жыл бұрын

How can you even spot the musket and a rifle from the game at first glance? Maybe the bayonet means it is a musket? But rifles gradually began to use them as well. Also, the game does not mention skirms using rifles at all, unless you learn it from the info section or the Arsenal upgrade. That guy said it is difficult to figure out which unit counters which from a glance as the weapons look alike. If you already read and know which unit has which firearm then you would have an intuitive idea.

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

@dougbound Wrong. Historically skirms were always used to harass standard line infantry (musketeers) from the flanks while hiding in bushes etc. If they weren’t effective in this role they wouldn’t have been utilized consistently for over 200 years. In real life, skirms were certainly easy pickings for cavalary compared to bayonet-equipped grouped musketeers.

39:49 ♫ every click I make ♫ every key I stroke ♩ I'll be rushing you

55 min reaction to a 11 min video. ;-)

@dimitartalevski1991

3 жыл бұрын

that's how it sopoused to be :D There is one youtuber that makes 45 min video on 1:40 minutes trailer

@NagosCrit

3 жыл бұрын

Is this ratio fixed or linear? I would like to review this for 265 mins

@muhammadadel4070

3 жыл бұрын

And what is the problem with that or with you too? He need to give examples and analyse what spirit has sayed, do you think Spirit did his video only in 10 mins?! He took weeks to make this comparison in 10 mins video

@Raiom.

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, very reacty

@jomiles3605

3 жыл бұрын

5 minute reaction for every 1 minute of video. Perfectly balanced as all things must be

15:20 whos intuituon tells them that a dude throwing a stick will outrage a cross bow because mine sure as hell didn't until they wiped out my archers 😂

My fav 2 age youtubers in 1 video? You should collb with spirit aussie

@vladimirlagos2688

3 жыл бұрын

That would be such an awesome vid. I hope it happens someday.

@TT-ov4yb

3 жыл бұрын

They should do 2v2 games on age 2 and 3

@NotFlappy12

3 жыл бұрын

@@TT-ov4yb that would be hilarious

halberdiers are just upgraded pikemans in AOE2 so i think you can tell that they should counter cav. It spike on the stick which is good againts cav

@OlrikMeister

3 жыл бұрын

Bit suprised he was suprised about a spear unit being good vs cav.

@ahbraveconscript997

3 жыл бұрын

pointy boiis go *tonk tonk*

@tplato3268

3 жыл бұрын

Interestingly, halberds were mainly fielded against other pikemen, and they were never more effective against cavalry than pikes. They fell out of use much earlier than pikes. Not really intuitive to me.

@OlrikMeister

3 жыл бұрын

@@tplato3268 thats true but there are no other non unique spear units other than the spearman and pikeman that come before the halberdier. So it would be instictive that it would be a stronger version of the previous one.

@rovsea-3761

3 жыл бұрын

@@tplato3268 It's intuitive that they're good against cavalry because they are an improvement to pikemen in game. Pikemen, in their turn, are an improvement on spearmen, and are better against cavalry than spearmen, establishing a pattern of each unit in the line being better than the previous against cavalry.

What you and SOTL is referring to where civs are more and less different in AOE2/AOE3/Starcraft is the degree of asymmetry. Starcraft is highly asymmetrical game, AOE2 less so. More assymmetry also adds complexity and makes it exponentially harder to balance the game the more civs you add. It's no coincidence that SC only has 3 civs, AOE2 has 35, and AOE3 is in-between.

Pretty sure the red bull empire wars was created to shorten the game length as red bull wanted it to be shorter for red bull reasons, while players and most people didn't really care. Normally the first 15 mins in dark age is just talking about the players so new people will know more about them and skill levels, I was new to aoe2 last year and the first 15 mins was really good as I understood who was the underdog and the personalities of the players

@satyakisil9711

3 жыл бұрын

"red bull reasons" sums it up perfectly.

11:50 It looks like mortar used by Japan in aoe3. Wait...

As I recall, AOE2 came in boxes of Nutri-Grain

@richardjohnstone1374

3 жыл бұрын

Conquerors edition babyyy

@erickr199

3 жыл бұрын

xD

20:00 Before Age 2 DE, you had to make Trebuchets pack and unpack when moving them around to hit things out of range. Now if you order them to attack a building outside their range, they will pack and unpack in range of that building and commence firing on it. It is great to say the least.

I have to add something to your sentence "the pace of RTS games gets/is too slow". I'm a AoE 2 player myself (played Aoe 3 too, but only casual), while playing a lot of slower strategy games and I get your point, that some games feel really slow. But having played for example C&C too and seeing, what the developers tried with that so called "C&C 4", is what I really wouldn't enjoy, there they got rid of the whole building up part entirely. I think a building up phase is mandatory, while it might be a little fast in AoE 3, it still works. Pros/competetive players probably enjoy faster games more. I'm more of the casual player, getting competetive nowadays, so I still like both.

Aoe2 was also one of the first games to have quite functional online multiplayer capabilities, right at the point where many people were getting their first decent internet connection at their homes. Kind of steamrolled because it was fairly unique in the online play back in 1999.

I kinda agree with Spirit of the Law about the fact that it's easier in AoE2 to go random civ since they're all similar, but pro players still recommand, when you start playing online, to play one civ a lot and learn their strenghts and weaknesses then switch to another one

As a game mechanic; rock, paper, scissors type of unit counter system is perfectly viable, fun even. But I'd argue that both age games force the player to learn the counters and only after the fact do they feel natural.

I love both age of empires 3 and 2. i play to play, not to win. I love those evenly matched games with intense battles, and really having to fight to win. especially the ones slightly leaning in my favour. i love the fast paced age of empires 3 and treaty. but also the limited resources in age 2

i have played aoe 3 for 2 weeks and i still could not tell light infantry counter heavy until watching this and when i played aoe 2 i learned very quickly a skirmisher counter archers

AoE3 came after the death of the RTS. The launch of Halo in 2001 really brought in the age of the console and FPS and made things difficult for a lot of computer game genres.

I think having a standardized start isn't bad. For reasons of familiarity. The game shouldn't start with a fight right away. But age 3 strikes a good balance because this part is around 5 minutes while it's 10 in age 2. Also then batch training hits in.

One factor for AoE2 popularity might be the PC specs AoE3 required. I remember when it came out, it needed a pretty zop PC to run it without any problems, and even then the home city screens lagged like hell. Meanwhile AoE2 could run on potato machines. But I myself like how every civ is different in AoE3. I rather learn it the hard way, than to look at ethiopians having typical european looking cavalry.

Can I just help you out a little drongo - imagine AOE2 halberdiers are like the Spanish pikeman (terrico pikeman) they are not a special unit / different unit they are just pikeman that have been upgraded a few times. Hope that helps you or anyone reading this 😊.

On unit counters in AoE3, I've played the game a lot since launch and never really learnt or bothered with them (short of pikemen Vs cavalry, which makes sense), and mostly using mixed units to overcome them, but the fact that light infantry beats heavy infantry is nuts and totally counterintuitive! 🤔😯😀🤘.

@strangesignal9757

2 жыл бұрын

You'd have to know the era's history to know why light infantry beats heavy infantry. Light infantry or "irregulars" were often recruited hunters or civilians used for guerrilla warfare or as skirmishers, and they used more accurate rifles instead of the smoothbore muskets of the line infantry to kill line infantry officers with accurate fire or ambush patrols or reinforcements on roads and forests, like the colonial battles shown in AoE 3. Their irregular formations meant that they were very exposed if suddenly charged by cavalry Heavy infantry, called "line infantry" formed the backbone of the armies and were equipped with bayonets and cheaper smoothbore muskets, much less accurate but a lot cheaper and easier to have lots of them for concentrated volleys of fire and gunpowder smoke on enemy formations, and they had the army drilling and formation tactics to counter a cavalry charge if they were still in combat condition AoE 3 does tell you a lot of this if you read the units' history data. Though it's important to mention that heavy infantry can beat light infantry if you order them to go into hand to hand combat and use their bayonets

@inconemay1441

Жыл бұрын

Ranged cavalry beating melee cavalry and artillery is even more confusing

I’ve often thought of you as the age 3 version of spirit of the law

@greywolf7577

3 жыл бұрын

I haven't watched that many videos on this channel, but it seems like he spends his time going over replays of videos, whereas Spirit of the Law will do experiments with units outside of the game to see how well they stack up against each other or how fast they collect resources or something like that.

Another QoL we also need along with patrol: Formation controls for land units similar to ship formations

@JaniHorvat1

3 жыл бұрын

The one thing the old AoE 3 had was good formations. Say you have grenadier, musketeers and longbow men. The grenadier is in the first to be in line, followed by the musketeer and then bowmen in the back. Here, they mix. So it's possible to have 5 grenadier and 3 muskets in the first line, then some muskets and bows in the second line. It is a detail I miss.

I don't think the cards unlocking was a cause for the discouragement (I think it was rather the novelty of the HC system). In a single player skirmish (aka the game mode most players will first/only play), the lack of cards is not an issue. In fact, it might've been more inviting to all the new player by letting them test those cards they had available, instead of giving them ALL the cards, including the "advanced" ones that are better suited for more special strategies. I also rememeber at some point when creating a new home city for multiplayer, it came at level 100 (probably a later patch).

Both games have strengths and weaknesses. I like AoE3 because it came when i was young and had time to play and learn it. AoE2 never drew my attention because i dont like medieval games. Even now that i get to learn more about it, i dont think that i would like it even if it shared the same era as AoE3. Identical civs and small differences between unique units, plus 20 minutes making your city/eco. Man that sounds boring af!! I believe that AoE2 only did better because it came out in the golden RTS era and people now get it just for nostalgia and its reputation. AoE3 has issues (with its formation mechanics,snare effect and certain commands (kh kh attack move kh kh)), but i would never pick AoE2 over AoE3.

is 200 still the max population? That's how big I want my military alone to be

@FloosWorld_AoE

Жыл бұрын

In ranked, yep, however since Definitive Edition, you can increase the pop limit for custom games to 500

AoE III is hated by AoE II fans just like HoMM IV is hated by HoMM III players - new game did something better, something worse, but overall - a lot things different and that's why. People are afraid of change. A lot of them didn't want to invest a lot of time in a different game so they kept close to AoE II. Also the culture of new gamers is different to the old ones and newer people do hate AoE III a lot more than those back in 2005.

@gongal

3 жыл бұрын

You couldn't have hurt AoE3 more than by comparing it to HoMM IV. Nicely done, buddy.

@LarryCroft111

3 жыл бұрын

@@gongal HoMM IV is nice!

"Total Annihilation - this is the best game of all time" (c) Drongo. My endless respect bro!

The High Level competition is too stressfull for me. Im looking for a passtime not another job. I enjoy the civ building and the upgrading trough the ages. The progression in Age 3 means nothing. It is so fast that you level up before you really feel what it means to be at that age.

There was a great video by a channel called extra credits,that compared game complexity vs depth. What it explained so well was that you dont need a lot of complexity to have huge dept and that infact you can have high ammount of complexity,with very little depth and high ammount of depth with very little complexity. A good example of game with great debth and minimal complexity is Chess,you have basicly 6 unit types,with very easy to understand movement,one can litteraly teach a complete begginer to chess ALL the rulles(as in all units stats,hidden bonuses and relavent game info) and ALL possible moves in the game(including castling)in about 5 mins,yet to master the game can take a lifetime. A good example of games with huge complexity and much lower depth than chess/starcraft/go are moba games in general or MMO RPG games like WoW,in those games you have huge complexity,a metric ton of stats,info,stun durations,hidden bonuses and all sorts of stuff that even a player with 200h+ in the game probably wont know it all(pretty sure most moba players with 200h in their respective game probably dont know EVERY single hero's EXACT spells,item,durations,multipliers and all sorts of other stuff and if they did,2-3 patches later it will all be different anyway,so if they take a break for an year,almost all the info their remembered will be next to useless when they come back) and yet despite all that complexity,mechanicly those games take less than 30 APM to play at highest competitive levels(which for comparison,30 apm would be bronze league standart in sc2,not even silver). Ofcourse I am not denying that moba games have depth and are competitive in their own way,but most of the depth comes from working as a team,the ammount of decisions an individual has to make,the pace at which he has to make those decisions,the ammount of possible stategic choices you can make,the varity in ways to play,those are all MUCH more limited(ergo less deep) even in the deepest MOBA compared to just about any RTS game(where you are not just managing 1 unit with 4 abilities,but rather building up an economy,upgrades,infrastructure,deffenses,army composition,scouting and reacting to your oponent's build,managing multiple fights at once and all of that is happening simultaniously). So despite having huge complexity,most mobas have far lower skill requirement for succesfull execution of your build/strategy,compared to an RTS(takes less APM) and also said builds/strategies are far more railed and unflexible compared to an RTS,adapting to what your oponent is doing is far less of a factor,meaning the strategic variety/depth/skill ceilling is also much lower. This ratio of complexity to depth,is what I would like to call "elegance" in gaming. Imo aoe2 is a FAR more elegant game than aoe3. It's a much more intuative game to learn as spirit of the Law pointed out,tech trees are in large portion shared,you can learn one faction and easily move on to the next as a new player. Sure aoe3's info about unit's dmg multiplier beeing always available ingame on the UI is nice,but EVEN with aoe2 lacking that(which they should fix),aoe2 is still far more intuative and easy to understand for a new player. In aoe2 you start on perfectly equal terms with your oponents,it's just your skill and strategies that determine who wins/looses,there are no pre game factors to give you unfair advantage. In aoe3 you have cards which you have to grind up,giving unfair advantage to players with proper cards compared to new players(any true esports game wouldnt have features like that,I get a lot of people like the cards,but as an esport purist I absolutely hate that stuff,when I saw cards in aoe3 back in 2006 my first reaction was like "nope,this is not an aoe game,uninstall"). Aoe2 additionally has a slightly higher skillcap imo,economy management takes more APM/has more decision to be made/has greater debth than aoe3 and the same is true for micro and unit battles,in aoe2 you usually have more units to manage,those units are also more responsive,no snaring and micro makes a bigger impact on unit effectiveness overall than it does in aoe3. So to sum it up,imo aoe2 is both easier to learn/more fair for new players AND at the same time the debth of high level esports is actually higher(which is another big reason why the competitive scene of aoe2 is FAR bigger and more hardcore than aoe3)

It's because it is different. People are afraid of changing things.

Yes and no about Empire Wars. While Wololo has been a popular tournament, it’s the only Empire Wars tourney out there. Red Bull wanted a quicker pace, and they provide the sponsor money. The biggest tourneys like Hidden Cup and NAC are still Random Map Conquest.

23:47 "Emotional investment takes time". "First hour as a city builder." This is why I left AOE2. A match takes less than half the time in Age 3. Who has time for AOE2 any more?

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed. AOE3 is sharp and fast. AOE2 is a slow slugfest. I played AOE3 first and when I tried AOE2 for the first time and noticed that settlers have to “drop off” their resources my first thought was “are you kidding me?”

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheBelovedRose. .... AOE2 is a slower game, get over it

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheBelovedRose. The point is, why does it matter? We are talking about the quality of the game itself based on things like, but not limited to, pace of gameplay. Popularity is incidental. AOE2 is popular, but so is Call of Duty, Fortnite and the MCU

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheBelovedRose. “Brain the size of a gnat”. Yet I’m not the one who prefers AOE2.

@ruparavi6409

3 жыл бұрын

@@kingstarscream320 You obviously have no patience

The point about counters isn’t really fair in my opinion. I think it really depends on game familiarity. My first age game was AoE3. Going into AoE2, I assumed mangonels would be good vs. buildings, I thought galleys would beat fire ships, and I thought skirmishers would be good vs. scout cavalry (the last one because of AoE3). AoE 3 does a far better job of being transparent and clear to the player on counters. I didn’t think this criticism vs. AoE3 was entirely fair. (In AoE 3, bigger ships beat smaller ships - this was also far more intuitive to me overall) As a side note, I think snaring is also a great and intuitive way to make melee units/cav more competitive vs. kiting; anyone that’s played AoE2 will know how frustrating it is to go up against perfect-kiting AI. That said - completely agreed on patrol / attack move. Packing up behavior I don’t have as much of a problem with; my artillery packs up if the target is far and stays deployed when near, which works for me. I personally love both games and love that they both offer very different experiences. I love the civ diversity and faster pace (my first RTS game was C&C Generals - also fast-paced) on AoE3. AoE2 was more of an acquired taste for me, but I’ve come to love the game as well (and it’s easier to play various civs because they’re all very similar to one another). Watched the video all the way to the end - thank you so much for the hopefulness and optimism!!! I’m so glad you are repping this game in such a great way and that AoE3 is getting the positive attention it deserves. It’s massive for the community to have great content creators like you and consistent dev support, and I’m really glad that things are only looking up from here.

The intro. YES PLEASE. ATTACK MOVE IN 3 SUCKS!

AoE2 is easy for beginners for these reasons: 1) Beginners won't know that rush exists and which civ bonuses are good or bad. They will look at the the tech tree and choose the one with the largest tech tree, because it's easier for them to evaluate. 2) Thus, they will pick Byzantines or Spanish, civs with very strong late game. They have Paladins and Bombard Cannons, which are good enough to brute force the AI. 3) Speaking of the AI, they will play against the Easiest AI. 4) They will also play on Black Forest or other maps that are easy to wall. Fortunately, this playstyle is the specialty of the Byzantines and Spanish. 5) You're talking about APM, but beginners aren't worried about it. They won't scout perfectly because they won't rush. They won't hunt the boar, because it's scary and can kill their vills. Beginners just play like that. 6) They will play the game as sort of a city builder, where you're collecting resources and building houses, with the AI occasionally attacking their walls. The beginner will crush the opposition and feel like they're a Roman emperor defending Constantinople (I guess this is why the devs made the Byzantines the beginner friendly civ). 7) After they research everything, they will attack the AI and defeat it. That's actually how a beginner would play after they got their fill of using cheats and want to try to play "properly'. In AoE3, the fact you can't wall because the enemy can trespass forests is already a huge disincentive. There's also no clear "beginner friendly" civilization, like the Byzantines in AoE2. The faster pace of AoE3 actually scares beginners off.

The most ambitious crossover does t exist. Aussie drongo in a spirit of the law vid

"Are Halberdiers Pikemen in _Age of Empires II?"_ "Were." They *were* Pikemen. 😂 But yeah, the _III_ Halberdier is more akin to the _II_ Militia-line. It is hilarious comparing same-name units between the games. Skirmisher is a _premium_ Crossbowman? Hussar is a _Heavy_ Cavalry? Mill is a Farm but Farm is also a Farm!?

OH MY GOD I paused your video, said "Until you get drushed", then unpaused to YOU pausing spirit's video and saying "Until someone drushes you". I'm so glad I wasn't the only one thinking that ten minutes is a little too generous.

Accurate league description

Wow... I totally agree that Total Annihilation was the best RTS!

Ohoho, two of the greats having an asynchronius debate!

The thing i find hardest to learn in AOE3 is not everything is in the Tech tree. In 2 i can see all the investment options i have at any one time in one place. However in 3 there wonders that have 4 separate power levels none of which are visible in the tech tree (No idea why a Commerce level Porcelain Tower can never ever gather at the same rate as the Fortress level one, but the army summon Palace becomes more valuable as it can summon new unit types/upgraded units) , There are also cards in the deck with an incomplete description that work differently for each faction. special church provides unique French techs. What are the effects? how much does it cost? how can I find out? before playing the card building the church then reading tooltips in game. Browsing a wiki mid match is a terrible solution. Honestly I think AOM worked a bit better for having multiple choices on how to age up but having a clear screen of what to expect at end game and what opponents can have.

“Til someone fucking drushes you” 😂 exactly why I’m planning to switch to Aoe3

the pace is so much better in aoe3 de. aoe2 de is so much difficult, I am terrified to go online on Aoe2 De, getting totally smashed

They should do singleplayer skirmish campaigns and introduce the home city leveling like the normal sp campaigns so you build a deck as you go through 12 to 14 skirmish matches.

When you play one game long enough everything looks perfectly intuitive to you. You would even build theories around that one game to justify everything of it (like a shield gives your javelin a bonus against archers, but wielding a sword would neglect that bonus, but being a unique unit gives you that bonus back). Then you switch to something new and begin to wonder why it is not as intuitive as the former.

@kennethwarring7681

3 жыл бұрын

When Aussie was complaining about how obvious Skirm vs Musk is but didnt see the parallel from when he was talking about how he could hardly tell Halbs would massacre his Paladins lol.

@tplato3268

3 жыл бұрын

@@kennethwarring7681 Same the other way around. “Shield grants a javelin higher damage against archers but guns cannot counter guns”

I do think SotL's criticism about intuitiveness is misguided. But I also think the skirmishers in AOE3 needs different poses. They should make all European skirmishers like the native Americans': in a more active, "stealthy" stance instead of the upright standing musketeers marching in perfect unison.

Thanks for the shoutout to Total Annihilation! What an incredible game. It's hard to describe how much of a leap forward that game was.

I actually have to completely disagree with Spirit. Despite growing up with AoE2 since a child, it is INCREDIBLY hard to get into, and this issue was only recently fixed in Definitive Edition, with the addition of shift-queuing orders and a friendly UI. Hidden bonuses throw you off hard in campaigns with no one to tell you why spears do more damage to scouts despite having less damage than men-at-arms, but there's something intrinsically intuitive about "Me build musket as british, me a-move".

I dont know why.. Listening to Australians swearing is just satisfying af😂

IMO AOE3 is more accessible. My issue with AOE3 for the past decade has been its lack of polish. AOE3 was clearly released in an Alpha state. There was a punctuation mistake in the list of Hot Keys, there was no Flare Hot Key, and as you mentioned the Attack Move is "um," the chosen font was horrid, and a few other items. Great vid. Thanks.

19:45 this is literally the thing that annoys me most about age 3. Why can't I just DISABLE auto packing? Holy Moly this enrages me so much.

About the first DLC for Age 2, the Forgotten... that was a fan initiative. Fans sat and made that, and Microsoft Games kept an eye on them, liked their content, and offered to fully fund their DLC. Male it official. The initial release was even free. That was what got interest back into the Age 2 community, and arguably the entire Age franchise

@Staklihen

3 жыл бұрын

The first and orignal expansion of AoE II was The Conquerors.

13:00 The bonuses are there, you can read them and know what's up, but there are more types of units that look similar in AOE 3 than in AOE 2. You can check the bonuses (which requires a fair bit of player micro to actually go through the trouble of clicking them unless you're actually stuck in a fight, by which time it's probably bad news) but there aren't nearly as many different unit types with bonus multipliers in AOE 2 as in AOE 3, and a *lot* of them appear similar. The reason he says it isn't intuitive, persay, is because this is a unique problem to AOE 3. It's usually very easy to tell what counters what, and specifically for AOE 2 you've got general counter cycles, specific unit counters, and exceptions. The RPS aspect of AOE 3 is a little more vague to me, if there's a counter triangle, I've missed it and I've played a fair bit. A lot of times I've got multiple decent responses to a threat and it's not clear what the direct counter should be and how easy *that* unit would be countered by a supplement. 18:45 If you can believe it, Voobly players (the HD alternative platform) have been complaining about the quality of pathing in the official releases for years. The numbers earlier for HD are actually underinflated because for it's entire lifespan, the competitive playerbase played *entirely* on Voobly. DE was their most recent attempt to fix pathing issues for melee units, patches tend to tweak bits here and there and it gets better slowly, but it's funny hearing someone from *another game* complaining about how much better AOE 2 pathing is. Shows just how much AOE 3 lacks. 26:50 =.= The reason why they use Empire wars is because the win condition is time-limited. While AOE 2 games generally do not run on for a long time, any game *does* have the chance of exceeding an hour of time played. Considering most players will reach Imperial before 40 minutes, it means it sometimes takes more than 20 minute to end the game after the final techs become available. It's not the pace at which it starts, it's the length to which the game can continue. Secondly, the *only* tournament series running Empire Wars is the one hosted by Red Bull, a company with an interest in providing a specific type of event style. Besides this one tournament series, every tournament, the ladder, all run on Default settings, Conquest victory. Red Bull has made their reasons clear, it's because they want the tournament to have nonstop action while also being able to run on schedule. It's *not* the same as playing a normal Conquest victory game though, just sped ahead, because TheViper (who is arguably the top player in the world) has won practically every other tournament but never RBW because it's a different experience. You don't know where your enemy is because you didn't have the chance to scout in Dark age. Your economy, related to your opponent, is generic because you didn't choose the balance of wood, food, gold, stone villagers, which makes certain builds impossible. In order to get into full Scouts, you need a *much* different distribution than full Archers, which actually limits feudal options. Dark age is vitally important to the construction of your strategy and skipping it is entirely different from skipping 8 probes in Starcraft, mainly because Probes would only be taking Minerals anyway, there's no tactical decision of what resource to collect, it's "the resource". And I know at 30:45, SOTL says something stupid. He does that sometimes. He doesn't mean every civ will *play* the dark age identically, he means that they functionally start with different dark ages that change the way they work out (he's talking Mayans, who have an extra starting villager, Chinese, who start with three extra but no starting food, the meso civs that start with an eagle scout, and Incas specifically who start with an extra sheep in Llama, as clear instances) but besides those, every dark age civ practically has all the same *options*. Every civ can drush, and every civ gets loom. In dark age, that's about everything you *can* do as a civ. What matters most in Dark age is how you distribute your villagers to different resources to prepare yourself for whatever build you have planned in Feudal and/or Castle age if you want to FC. 37:40 Nobody's going to accuse SOTL of being good at AOE 2 or AOE 3. IIRC he's just above average in AOE 2 (like 1250?) and I don't think he's ever decided to take AOE 3 seriously.

"Why is AOE2 more popular"? The biggest reason is money. AOE2 is freeware installed on pc's in pc-bangs around the world. Go to China or Vietnam or Venezuela and you'll see groups of preteens clustered around the game. Age 3 won't play on most 90% of home or shop pc's out in the third world. It excludes 90% of the potential player base and I think that's a good thing for multiplayer.

@Joe-th7kf

3 жыл бұрын

Money is not worth the price of the game. It’s honestly not the best place to get the money back into the game lol but it’s honestly not worth the money to play. The game was okay but the game itself wasn’t worth the wait for the next update and I couldn’t get past it because I grew bored. Sometimes you can see the other things that you’re doing right now and sometimes you don’t get to see the damn things that you’re going through and I’ll never forget that.

Empire Wars argument is strawman at best - nobody really plays Empire Wars. It's been available since launch...

@thekama14

3 жыл бұрын

true, empire wars forces instant action which throws out the window the opportunity to use different offensive or defendive strategies, there is a reason most pros don't like it much

Dude I like that Drongo is getting angry at things I hate most. Also you build an empire in Aoe2, a foothold,a state or village in Aoe3. That's why we got thing called HOME CITY. We are building another far land of our empire, not whole empire.

I do agree that in the early game it can be daunting for someone playing Aoe 2 with all the things you have to do and that you have a high APM so early into a game, you know it makes sense. However there is another point where it’s easier to maintain a high APM throughout a game than going slow and then have to start picking up the pace, kinda makes you feel that your rushing yourself or that your not going fast enough, this has happened to me a lot in a variety of games.

As someone who has played and enjoyed both games, I can show an example of how different they are. I often like to find the quintessential faction for me in an RTS, something I can play that best suits my playstyle. With AoE2, it's hard to find it, but not hard to look, per say. They're similar enough that I can just say "I'm playing the Goths" or maybe "the Mongols" and just play it. Of course, there's the caveat that I usually check up on the Spirit of the Law video for the civ, because it can be hard to learn all the civilizations, what they're good at, and how to best use their strengths while compensating for their weaknesses. Before I watched his channel, I was guessing at things blindly, and mostly just played a few favorites I remember playing when I was (admittedly) five or six. I'm about there in terms of AoE3, but I have gotten better at these sorts of games. Spirit of the Law's videos helped me recognize the patterns in RTS games, so when I picked up DE, I was a lot better. The last spurt of me playing AoE3 had me booming with Russians, which I now realize was incorrect (rushing is more effective; it's in the name), and I tended to use musketeers, which was also a mistake. Then after learning a lot about the Swedish, some from this channel actually, I decided that I wanted to try them out (though the start of it was the grass roofs, to be honest), and now, it's the civ I play the most. The problem I find is that experimentation is a lot harder, especially after playing the Swedish, as I end up getting housed and needing to find more early game balance between three resources instead of two, since I was building torps on coin mines. While the Swedish clicked for me, I really wanted to figure out how to play the other civs, as differing playstyles can be a lot of fun. While a Spirit of the Law for AoE3 would be nice, it'll have to happen naturally, and for the time being, experimentation and wiki reading are the only options I have. Oh well.

39:10 Yeah, he meant it's more accessible for beginners.

Age 2 was always so fucking boring to me. I like how different each civ feels in 3- the civs in 2 just feel so copy and pasted. It makes me think they really tried to advance the RTS genre with 3 and try to make it more complex and interesting!

@hiran4935

3 жыл бұрын

Well I have played both. Aoe 3 civs feels nice yah, but aoe 2 mechanics and civs are much more balanced imo. And there are some mechanics in aoe 3 I really don't like, for an example, troops slowing down when attacked by a melee unit, that just mess up the micro so bad. I used to think 3 was better than 2 but I recently got aoe 2 DE and I clearly can see why people take 2 over 3. Still I love playing 3 with friends. I love the graphics and teamplay in 3

I loved your joke about the missing 10%. But about the appearance of the units and the intuitivenes, I think that the designs of the units in AOE2 are more easily identifiable in a quick glance, in AOE3 the units look more similar and to other units. As someone who doesn't actually play any of those games anymore but like watching, I find easier to understand the AOE2 games.

I remember getting trash talked by Napoleon when I played in a FFA with 7 AIs. Never played FFA again on AoE3, 11

Age 2 is just too basic. Over 100 civs to only do a fast castle and never building a castle in a competitive level, it is just too boring and that's the thing I loved from Mythology and Age 3, the way civs work/play/synergyze

I think age 2 got bigger because it came out at the right time. I think it's bigger now because asymmetry isn't popular in esports, and Age is now primarily an esport

@FloosWorld_AoE

Жыл бұрын

Yet SC2 exists and the three factions are the most asymetric it can get

What is and isn't intuitive is entirely dependent on your previous experiences. When I played Battlefield 1942 for the first time I thought it was obivous that a slow-shooting gun equals a shotgun so I tried to kill people with a bolt action gun in close range and didn't understand why it did not work.

best quote, "the shoe is on both feet here" 17:59 i loled :)

I have alwaya found AOE3 extremly easy to pick up. Most of the challenge is build order

People getting to Age ii in less than ten minutes and trying to kill their opponents villagers in the first five minutes is something I hate in AoE iii. I like to spend an hour or two exploring, building my town and fully upgrading my units before I start fighting, or if I'm pushed into early fighting, maybe skirmishing around age iii, but still really don't want to fight until there's nothing left to do and everybody's ready and I NEVER attack villagers early on, only mopping them up after major battles! 🤔😯😀🤘 .

AOE 2 was the most accessible game for me. I could easily pirate it. And it ran on a low spec PC. AOE 3 required a CD key code. It was difficult to pirate it. People who think piracy decreases the number of player are wrong. In majority of the places people pirate. And most of these players are kids. When they grow up they support the game in the future. For me AOE 3 was difficult to pirate but i was eventually able to do so and now i bought AOE DE cuz now i have money. AOE2 was more accessible and in the future players supported it when they grew up.

I think all of SotL's arguments about unit counters can be debunked by the fact that every unit in the game tells you what it counters before you even build it. You just need to skim that for half a second to get what counters what.

intuitive means you know it by not looking it up (by clicking the unit) (14:00)

He should have made a point about the IA and campains, thoese are realy great and could be the cause for the "accesibility"

@BattleBrothersInternational

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah. The campaigns were definitely more appealing in AoE2.

SoTL got a good point with the feeling of building an empire that is yours, however he didn't mention something important: Most of the players in RTS are casual players, who either play single player, or against AI or coop or scenarios or with friends. They dont care about competitivity, build orders, meta etc. Even in Starcraft 2, most playerbase is casual. So while for me or you it's all about winning in 1v1s, for the vast majority it's about the casual gameplay, and things like going "SimCity" in AoE2 is very appealing.

I think what SOTL means with unintutive counters is some men with guns wreck other men with guns. Some men with guns kill Cavalry like flies while other men with gun get cleaned by a small number and that diffrence isnt very visible.

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

Skirmishers and Musketeers look completely different.

I really wished for a patrol option for a long time though, It's not like units never patrolled during colonial Era. In the india campaign, in the mission to rescue Bahadur Shah u can see enemy units patrolling the city...

I remember the day AOE III came out. I was so hype for it and got the deluxe edition. The biggest thing that put me off was the home cities like you mentioned. I really liked the 3D feel, and the railroads. But the home city, and the time period also. There was so little Unit variation compared to AOE II. I just didn’t enjoy it and so dropped it very fast and never picked it up again. And yes, I never played multiplayer because I hate it when people gg wp before the game is over. I always played single player. Also because I’ve been playing single player since the time of LAN cables

Longtime Age of Series player, 5 features I wish age 3 did that age 2 does 1. Settlers and villagers should've had to drop off resources 2. Stone should've been a resources for outposts, walls, and forts and the buildings whose designs look like they used stone along the way and quarries could've been a building after natural sources are exhausted 3. Gold should only be spent on reasonable means and not for building buildings 4. patrol is definitely a feature I wish they had implemented back then and now, all my falconets gone because I go back to my town 5. We had more time to build up our town so it can look like a city just like in age 2. bonus- the cannon mechanics shouldn't have to pack up when they move, they should move slow without needing to pack up extra bonus- age of empires 2 have a variety of civilizations, but age of empires 3 has diversity within each civilization, and thats where both are hurting because they both lack both these elements. XP boost- the architecture of buildings in age 2 reflects which civilization your playing as, I wish the game would do this for your units so they look like they're from that region too, it would fix what I said above with diversity within the civilizations and this is why the community is divided in games, that's why I play all sides of the dice, knowing that game companies need someone to smack them when they do change shit and the game needs modifying, which is why we wont get an age game during the great war, ww2, cold wars, or modern wars, also because that's fresh history that most remember and its controversial releasing a game with the last 100+ years of history within this games clout.

I think Age of Mythology is the most egregious Age Game when it comes to attempting to visually identify counter-units.

@inconemay1441

Жыл бұрын

It's not exactly 1 to 1 between civs unlike between Janissary and Musketeer for example

Here he sounds like a different person. So angry and on edge! Now with Aoe4 he is so chilled.

I remember when I got back into aoe3 again I was really annoyed by the home cities needing a lvl up. Not that this is useful anymore now DE is out but you can set your home city to maximum in the game files. It does require you to make a save with every civ but it helped me out with the initial barrier to entry

@kingstarscream320

3 жыл бұрын

Or you can just play 5 or 6 games until you get to level 30 and are able to get all the cards you need

Oh, Aussie, so precious and naive and hopeful. AoE2 Halbs having a 27 hidden damage bonus against cav with a base damage of 12? I wish. It's got a base damage of 6, and a bonus damage of 32. The normal damage vs the actual damage of units in AoE2 is absolutely ludicrious, there's no way of playing that game without sitting and memorizing every unit's hidden bonuses. Halberdiers do bonus damage against 8 (!!) different armour types. Units can have multiple armour types. Against an elephant a Halb will do 6+32 (cav)+28 (war elephant) damage. In addition there's 7 Civs with (also often hidden) bonuses to Halbs. There's FIVE different armour classes for BUILDINGS alone. Three units in the game deal pierce and melee damage simultaneously, but two of them deal 0 melee damage. Why is that relevant? It's 0 before bonuses are applied, of course because in addition to armour bonuses, and armour classes, and damage types, a unit can have an armour penalty! It's so intuitive! This ties into the similar but many civs as well. You can have two different civs using the same unit that looks identical, but one deals almost double damage, with no indication. I cannot fathom why it's more popular. Trying to learn that game, especially in multiplayer, is like running headlong into a brick wall to learn how to sprint. AoE3 is very welcoming, all (well, almost) of the math is available and visible right off. How fast are villagers gathering? How much of an improvement is an upgrade? What's a counter to Mamelukes? It's all there. You want to know that for AoE2? Prepare to spend 2 hours reading wikis. Okay, rant over

@martytu20

3 жыл бұрын

The village gathering rate was only introduced in DE. AOE3 didn't have it.

@NotFlappy12

3 жыл бұрын

Gotta have to agree with you here. The one thing that wasn't intuitive in aoe 3 before DE was the difference between regular (non-heavy) infantry and light infantry. I'm pretty sure most people who look at that stat think that heavy infantry have bonus damage against skirmishers. It's also not clear that bonuses against all infantry like lancers and artillery *don't* affect light/shock infantry

@Ellanion

3 жыл бұрын

@@martytu20 I know, but DE is the one everyone's playing and we're comparing against the most recent iteration of AoE 2 so it seems only fair.

@Ellanion

3 жыл бұрын

@@NotFlappy12 Yeah, the whole infantry that pretends to be cavalry is pretty silly. It's a very clunky solution to Aztecs having a gap in their rock paper scissors game, and DE unfortunately doubled down on it instead of fixing it.

@NotFlappy12

3 жыл бұрын

@@Ellanion at least DE made it a lot clearer by calling it shock infantry

Love your vids Drongo, thanks for being you. Watching your games and commentary always brighten up my day.