RTS Age of Empires IV - Medieval Again

[fantadomat]

Yeah, AoE2 is still so alive and kicking that there's no chance 4 can dethrone it.
If anything, 4 might funnel more newbies into AoE2 in the long run lmao.

I agree that 4 won't dethrone 2 but people who played 4 as their first Age game won't be able to easily pick up any of the older ones. From the looks of it 4 is much less micro intensive and economy management is extremely simplified. Mangudai in the original AoC used to be micro-able to an insane amount of skill and even after being nerfed in HD and DE, still offer a capability of being able to take down much more than their cost in units if microed well. In AoE4, they just fire automatically, and you just need to move them (though that is their special feature, it is not as nuanced as in AoC/2 where fast firing was there but the player had to have the skill to use it).

Can anyone who played verified if there is boar luring? Or being able to chase deer into your mill? Or dodging mangonnel shots? Those were some common micro-requiring situations in AoE2.

Also, are monks still capable of converting to the level of cheesiness? Most people somehow don't have a problem with it but its one of my biggest bug bears (along with Chinese and Vikings being weak as fuck to Siege Onagers).

I seen monks only for relic picking and sometimes when war elephants are in battlefield in old AOE2. They cost more gold than a paladin after all.

I've seen monks used a lot by Aztec players because of how OP Aztec monks are.

I like to have 5 monks with me,especially if i play archer civ. Their healing archers pays up their cost for sure.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Yeah, AoE2 is still so alive and kicking that there's no chance 4 can dethrone it.
If anything, 4 might funnel more newbies into AoE2 in the long run lmao.

I agree that 4 won't dethrone 2 but people who played 4 as their first Age game won't be able to easily pick up any of the older ones. From the looks of it 4 is much less micro intensive and economy management is extremely simplified. Mangudai in the original AoC used to be micro-able to an insane amount of skill and even after being nerfed in HD and DE, still offer a capability of being able to take down much more than their cost in units if microed well. In AoE4, they just fire automatically, and you just need to move them (though that is their special feature, it is not as nuanced as in AoC/2 where fast firing was there but the player had to have the skill to use it).

Can anyone who played verified if there is boar luring? Or being able to chase deer into your mill? Or dodging mangonnel shots? Those were some common micro-requiring situations in AoE2.

Also, are monks still capable of converting to the level of cheesiness? Most people somehow don't have a problem with it but its one of my biggest bug bears (along with Chinese and Vikings being weak as fuck to Siege Onagers).

I seen monks only for relic picking and sometimes when war elephants are in battlefield in old AOE2. They cost more gold than a paladin after all.

In high levelk games and tournaments, monks are the Aztecs'(and some other monk-civs') first choice, especially on closed maps. They key is not that they cost 100 gold, but that they cost only gold and hence, can be supported by a weak or turtling economy. Here's a tournament game where the Aztec player has a castle on his doorstep and his answer of choice is monks:

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Monks are super niche in both multi and single, unless you're autistic enough to cheese them in campaigns or something. Stop making an issue out of literally nothing.

Anyways, reading comments and user reviews it seems that the devs took "low effort" part of the project rather seriously. Lots of basic stuff missing, no diplomacy changes, no ingame scoring, no editor (wtf), no pausing in multi, no replays, game modes missing, units stances missing and much more. Apparently you cannot even change your player color

And what's with that "golden thread" shite in the UI and little sped-up golden ghosts appearing when building? I'm sure someone in the art department is super proud of themselves, but it just looks goofy af and completely out of place.

 

[Lacrymas]

The whole thing mostly suffers from not being able to tell what the devs were going for and it kinda feels old in a way. AoE2: DE is more modern. AoE4 comes off as being from 15+ years ago and not in a good way.

 

[Tigranes]

Monks are super niche in both multi and single, unless you're autistic enough to cheese them in campaigns or something. Stop making an issue out of literally nothing.

Anyways, reading comments and user reviews it seems that the devs took "low effort" part of the project rather seriously. Lots of basic stuff missing, no diplomacy changes, no ingame scoring, no editor (wtf), no pausing in multi, no replays, game modes missing, units stances missing and much more. Apparently you cannot even change your player color

And what's with that "golden thread" shite in the UI and little sped-up golden ghosts appearing when building? I'm sure someone in the art department is super proud of themselves, but it just looks goofy af and completely out of place.

It's pretty much as if someone at ES released a quick spinoff soon after Age3, mixing a bunch of design features across AOK/AOM/Age3 into a mix that's not quite terrible, but doesn't really shine above the rest of the series in any particular way.

I do actually like no ingame score - it forces you to scout/observe in ways you simply didn't with F4 on, esp. in team games.

 

[vota DC]

Aren't monk killers cheaper even counting their total cost? Scout line Is 80 each. Also archers are only 70 and can kill monks, you just need enough number to one kill monks and profit from their high rate of Fire.

 

[Johannes]

Aren't monk killers cheaper even counting their total cost? Scout line Is 80 each. Also archers are only 70 and can kill monks, you just need enough number to one kill monks and profit from their high rate of Fire.

Everything has a counter. If you're facing mass archers then monks are a poor choice, but you've got other tools to deal with that. If your opponent is massing knights, then potentially monks can either keep them away or force a tech switch, either works.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Aren't monk killers cheaper even counting their total cost? Scout line Is 80 each. Also archers are only 70 and can kill monks, you just need enough number to one kill monks and profit from their high rate of Fire.

Its about economy. If you have the time, watch high level games on the map Arena, like the one I linked to above. Going fast into castle age (fast-castle / FC), monks only require gold to make while anything else requires wood / food+gold+upgrades. When two people reach castle age at around 18 in game minutes and one goes monks and the other doesn't, the player who doesn't will have to sacrifice economy by making 80F scouts or 25W45G archers, both of which require resources to upgrade and need barracks+blacksmith+archery / stables to make. Players are always taught to take the whole cost of fielding a unit into mind when deciding a strategy to follow and when taking full economic impact into account, monks are very light, if not the lightest because you can still keep one or two TCs running reasonably frequently while also attacking. Also, if a monk is able to convert just one knight, he pays back more than 100G because not only did the opponent lose a unit but the player gained one.

There's a reason there are strategies called monk rush, Saracen monk rush etc.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Monks are super niche in both multi and single, unless you're autistic enough to cheese them in campaigns or something. Stop making an issue out of literally nothing.

lol watch the game I linked, or look at any beginner's guide to arena. If you're anything above easy difficulty on campaign, monks are a threat that can cheese you or cost you a lot.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Yeah, aztec are a go to monk civ and have (had) op economy allowing them to employ them in some situations, and? Tell me about all your 1:1 games where you managed to force a surrender through monk spam. There's no easy difficulty in the campaigns and I haven't seen a mission where they would go above converting like 10 units due to ai being perfect at their micro. Literally a non issue.

 

[Young_Hollow]

If you have DE, play a standard game / skirmish vs moderate or higher AI where you choose any ''monk'' civ as enemy on arena and take a non-monk civ (except Teutons) and try to win.

 

[deuxhero]

Nobody posted it, but they used trebuchet for marketing again. More importantly the guy they commissioned to make it is a props/special effects guy who is an amateur historian and they let him keep it when they were done with it, so he's going to do various tests on it on his own channel.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Tod is a legend.

 

[Tehdagah]

Is this a remake of Age 2?

 

[Caim]

Is this a remake of Age 2?

Nope, it's Age of Empires 2 2. Not to be confused with Age of Empires 2 HD Edition or Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition, the latter of whom still receives semi-regular DLC.

 

[Tehdagah]

It's too much like Age 2, so underwhelming

 

[Lacrymas]

Is it, though? It's much more like AoE3 imo.

 

[Caim]

It's too much like Age 2, so underwhelming

Funny, because the opposite was the primary argument against Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3, which paired with the lowered sales of those games and Halo Wars led to Microsoft walking Ensemble Studios to the ditch.

 

[Tehdagah]

It's too much like Age 2, so underwhelming

Funny, because the opposite was the primary argument against Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3, which paired with the lowered sales of those games and Halo Wars led to Microsoft walking Ensemble Studios to the ditch.

Yes, I blame the people who complained about Age 3

 

[Tacgnol]

My biggest annoyance with AOE 3 was the silly Dan Brown campaign. The actual gameplay I thought was mostly fine.

Age of Mythology was good as well.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Game is good, campaigns are nice with great videos plus nice multiplayer.

 

[fantadomat]

Game is good, campaigns are nice with great videos plus nice multiplayer.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Can you micro around your archers and feel like Revolver Ocelot?

 

[Alter Sack]

I really looked forward playing this game.

Then I watched the trailer:



A female muslim general?

Really?

What the fuck.

 

[Cunt Dickula!?]

Lol. That and female scouts/khans ingame.

 

[AdamReith]

Unfortunately it's possible that the only reason that MS made AoE4 was because they couldn't resist the opportunity to poz the shit out of history.

I think it's good to have another RTS though, it would be nice to see some life come back to the genre.