Age of Empires

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 11 Jun 2006, 08:47

I never played first and second part,except for a few hours of second.But now Im playing the third,and it is nice.Although I still prefer EE over AoE,it is the game that inspired it,and it is quite good.One disapointing thing,though,is that in campaigns you have to advance to the ages you already got in previous maps.

Your thoughts?

Xenofex.XVII · Unread postby **Xenofex.XVII** » 11 Jun 2006, 09:47

I likes the first and second ones better.

innokenti · Unread postby **innokenti** » 11 Jun 2006, 10:58

DaemianLucifer wrote:One disapointing thing,though,is that in campaigns you have to advance to the ages you already got in previous maps.

Well yes, but that's the same as say building up your town from scratch in each Heroes level. Just a gameplay thing.

I do love the Age of Empires (+Age of Mythology) games because they provide a different sort of gameplay to a lot of games despite using basic, existing, elements. Well done to Ensemble Studios.

In AoEIII they've really developed on the formula while keeping the best bits in there (Home Cities - genius). I do love the early modern era as a setting too.

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 11 Jun 2006, 11:15

innokenti wrote:Well yes, but that's the same as say building up your town from scratch in each Heroes level. Just a gameplay thing.

No its not,because those are different towns youre playing with.

theLuckyDragon · Unread postby **theLuckyDragon** » 11 Jun 2006, 13:41

I play Age of Empires II The Conquerors with my friends whenever we get the chance and we have a lot of fun! We usually play on Black Forest, with computers on hardest and with few resources. When we play against each other, they never want to use any map with lots of water, because I'm usually Spanish and make lots of nice Elite Cannon Galleons

AoE 1 was one of the first games I ever had.

innokenti · Unread postby **innokenti** » 11 Jun 2006, 23:03

DaemianLucifer wrote:
innokenti wrote:Well yes, but that's the same as say building up your town from scratch in each Heroes level. Just a gameplay thing.
No its not,because those are different towns youre playing with.

If you have a built-up town why not use that as your base in the next map? Alas, you can't. Because of gameplay - every level has to start more or less from scratch. Same with AoE. Otherwise half the fun would be gone.

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 12 Jun 2006, 00:30

innokenti wrote:If you have a built-up town why not use that as your base in the next map? Alas, you can't. Because of gameplay - every level has to start more or less from scratch. Same with AoE. Otherwise half the fun would be gone.

Because its a different region,and hauling troops from your home town would take too long.You cannot compare buildings with technology.Sure,it is ok if you have to build new baracks,new stables,etc,but researching the technologies from scratch is illogical,imo.

innokenti · Unread postby **innokenti** » 12 Jun 2006, 01:02

I think the least you should demand from RTSes etc is logic to be honest. Unless they're trying to actually be historical games (and very few do) the point is mostly to work the repeat mechanic.

The Age mechanism of advancement is a relatively interesting innovation and it's pointless eliminating it for some pointless logic.

In Heroes... is it logical for armies to be just stacks and fight only in stacks? Armies not able to wander without hero (HIV had that of course). And so on and so forth.

Why are we arguing about this anyway?!

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 12 Jun 2006, 01:36

innokenti wrote:I think the least you should demand from RTSes etc is logic to be honest. Unless they're trying to actually be historical games (and very few do) the point is mostly to work the repeat mechanic.

The Age mechanism of advancement is a relatively interesting innovation and it's pointless eliminating it for some pointless logic.

In Heroes... is it logical for armies to be just stacks and fight only in stacks? Armies not able to wander without hero (HIV had that of course). And so on and so forth.

But age is a historical game.And in EE(that derived from AoE)you didnt have to research epochs you reached in previous maps(probably because there were 14 of them

).

As for the hero chaining,that is a feature I really hate.Stacks can pass though.

innokenti wrote: Why are we arguing about this anyway?!

For the sake of postcount

innokenti · Unread postby **innokenti** » 12 Jun 2006, 08:50

Don't think of it as 'Ages' then but as building up local are infrastructure to be able to support and produce required units. ¬_¬

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 12 Jun 2006, 10:03

innokenti wrote:Don't think of it as 'Ages' then but as building up local are infrastructure to be able to support and produce required units. ¬_¬

Hmm...That is a nice way of looking it.You know,it does make a lot more sense that way.Thanks.

Marzhin · Unread postby **Marzhin** » 12 Jun 2006, 10:06

I was a huge player of the original Age of Empires, but I strangely never liked the second one. And I never tried the third.

ThunderTitan · Unread postby **ThunderTitan** » 12 Jun 2006, 10:52

While I always considered it a cool game I never managed to get into it. Always got my @$$ handed to me by the computer. Did finish Age of Mythology. Maybe i'll look into the third one this summer.

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 18 Jun 2006, 07:42

Just finished the third part.Its ok,although not briliant.Although the end credits are a bit...well,mysterious.Just the way I like it

Crusard · Unread postby **Crusard** » 18 Jun 2006, 14:02

Altough the second part is definetely the most popular, I somewhat liked AoE I a lot more. The enjoyed the third part's demo a lot, too.

cornellian · Unread postby **cornellian** » 18 Jun 2006, 19:44

I played, and was good in the first two, but didn't bother to check the third after its disappointing demo.. Especially the second one Age of Kings, can be a great game when played with/against friends, but Internet has way more than necessary number of jerks that kill the spirit of gaming..

You could find very heated discussions about '7 peasants and moving up ages in <5 minutes vs. 8 peasants and moving up in <6 minutes', or this kind of crap. Every player 'mechanized' himself (and as far as I know still does in the third) with peasantx4, house, peasantx3, kumber, peasant, granary,... build orders and the game turns to be a clickfest...

But if played against friends and with small numbers it is great fun, and one that requires strategy more than good reflexes..

innokenti · Unread postby **innokenti** » 18 Jun 2006, 19:46

cornellian wrote: You could find very heated discussions about '7 peasants and moving up ages in <5 minutes vs. 8 peasants and moving up in <6 minutes', or this kind of crap. Every player 'mechanized' himself (and as far as I know still does in the third) with peasantx4, house, peasantx3, kumber, peasant, granary,... build orders and the game turns to be a clickfest...

But if played against friends and with small numbers it is great fun, and one that requires strategy more than good reflexes..

Unfortunately that seems to happen in so many strategy games.

Truly saddens me. Strategy innovationg and change and development is the key indeed... and friends are most instrumental in that.

theLuckyDragon · Unread postby **theLuckyDragon** » 18 Jun 2006, 20:41

With my friends, I always play at a maximum of 50 population -- it makes unit building decisions more complex. And even though sometimes we do rush a little bit to see who's "first in Feudal", we mainly play because we have lots of fun.

Each of us has his perks; for example, if there's an enemy castle near the middle of the map, I always try to take it. A friend always builds wonders when and where you expect the least. Another friend has a thing with Bombard Towers and buys stone like crazy just to be able to build them in enemy territory.

Once, we were playing against each other and I destroyed my friend's market, but he didn't notice when all the Trade Carts stopped. One of those Trade Carts stopped very conveniently right in front of a Gate, leaving it open. He didn't notice that either. He did however notice a certain number of Paladins wreaking havoc in his base a few minutes later.

DaemianLucifer · Unread postby **DaemianLucifer** » 18 Jun 2006, 20:58

cornellian wrote:You could find very heated discussions about '7 peasants and moving up ages in <5 minutes vs. 8 peasants and moving up in <6 minutes', or this kind of crap. Every player 'mechanized' himself (and as far as I know still does in the third) with peasantx4, house, peasantx3, kumber, peasant, granary,... build orders and the game turns to be a clickfest...

But if played against friends and with small numbers it is great fun, and one that requires strategy more than good reflexes..

This became the part of every RTS.Some of them I can start without looking,just using my keyboard in the first minute or two.

asandir · Unread postby **asandir** » 21 Jun 2006, 03:59

i haven't found many rts's that fall far from this tree .... it's a bit intrinsic to the game, the scenario's can change it up a bit by disabling certain builds, but mp quickly falls into a clickfest

The Heroes Round Table

Age of Empires

Age of Empires

Re: Age of Empires

Re: Age of Empires

Re: Age of Empires

Re: Age of Empires

Who is online