it's always stumped me. The graphics were WAY better for Age 3, and man we put our heart and soul into that game. We always attributed it to the fact that vikings and samurai are sexier than hussars and musketeers. We actually set as a goal to win the E3 best graphic award for Age 3, a prize which was almost always won by a first-person-shooter. And we did it! Source: I was one of the main developers for both Age 2 and Age 3.
Sandy, I was extremely young when I played and I speak from what today you'd call single player? 3 seemed to be more like AoM and it works there beautifully but the campaign in 3 didn't live up to it. So it wasn't what we were expecting so kids stuck to 2 and AoM.
It is awesome that we can get insights like this in a youtube comment, this should be higher! Assuming you are authentic, on the internet anybody can say anything and I am lazy to investigate as almost anybody It is so nice to read the comments sometimes
It is not your fault Sandy. Age of Empires 3 did not "fail" because it was worse. It failed because it was released too late. The RTS was a dying and nearly dead genre in 2005. With the exception of Starcraft 2 nothing recovered. People lost interest in the genre as a whole and just stuck with their guns on their favourite game. I say fail in quotes because it didn't fail at least not as a quality game. Me, my brother and my dad used to play that game just about every day using LAN. We were pretty fond of the game and upon hearing the name we could separately recall very specific battles with detail it was a pretty important game especially to me and my brother growing up. So much so to this day if either of us are playing a RTS game and hear the guys say "hello" we think of: "Commandiment? I woll!" On the topic of graphics I am impressed how well it still holds today. A lot of 3D games of the time look quite bad now a days or at the very least dated. If that came out today nobody would say "That looks old" apart from the hud of course. Glad to see you comment I first time I saw you was from the video you did with Lindybeige a few years ago.
Tbh it was done so much better on the battle for middle earth games. Watching orcs go flying as you charge cavs or people when they hit by trolls and spells.
I personally liked the civilizations having the unit variety more specific. Getting a completely unique roster between France, Ottomans, Japanese or Russia adds more flavor to faction choice, and feels more historically authentic.
On top of that you know most of the times what those units do with looking at the model alone. There are exceptions like the culverin and oprichnik. Long range inf > short/ no range inf + ranged cav > melee cav > long range inf.
I will say this tho. Samurai Revolution is right: France is Hella OP. The Ottomans don't feel nearly as OP as France despite the fact that they're one of the strongest nations in the game (with good historical basis). I've played several matches against French AI as Netherlands (Personal fave) and sometimes even guard halberdiers will struggle vs Cuirassiers. And same goes for Ruyters. But at least the Netherlands have some of the best endgame siege capabilities in the game thanks to the coehorn mortars card. That being said, getting only 30 musketeers does feel a bit annoying since skirms are shit vs cav which is bad when playing vs France, Germany, Russia and India
@@KravenTheKnight The French Cuirassiers/ Gendarmes are easy to beat with the Dutch Ruyter, Spanish combo of Dragoon and Espada with 10 missionaries behind them, all musket type units and aoe melee units. I feel like Ottomans are indeed too weak. Their eco is slow and their military is expensive. Mortars are often not really worth it. Other horse arty will do the job most of the times and they can be used against units as well. When you play as the Netherlands you actually don't even need a barrack. Just train Ruyter and horse arty. The amount of each depends on what your opponent makes.
@@Vincrand well, against Aztecs, Japanese and Russians you definitely want skirms. And the Dutch skirms are pretty good because of the infantry combat cards. Plus they decimate Spanish rodeleros and pikes like nobody's business. That being said, I'll definitely take into account your advice and try to use more Ruyters and horse arty
@@Vincrand Yeah, I felt the counter system was fairly easy to understand, especially in terms of the time period. Light infantry counter heavy infantry because of their combat tactics and method of deployment but this can't be easily simulated in an Age game so you rely on damage modifiers to simulate combat advantages.
@@Marine_Dynamite not everyone can afford mango grooves shipped from our homeland So we try some magic spells these days like Censored Lumberjack Woodstock
One big reason is also timing. AoE2 was released in the golden age of RTS, alongside AoE1, Warcrafts, Starcraft, Red Alerts, C&C etc. AoE3 was released in the era of Call of Duty, Battlefield, World of Warcraft and other "more straightforward" games. So naturally AoE2 got a bigger player base and that granted it a classic status, one which has grown old very well.
This is important context, 100%. Sales/players is always dependant on a number of factors like genre popularity at the time, competition, series fatigue marketing budget etc. Amazing how many games are ignored at launch and then later lauded as hidden gems
AoM is closer to AoE 2 than AoE 3 is to AoE 2 gameplay wise. AoE 3 is a great game on its own, but feels alien to fans of the franchise. I loved AoE 1 a lot due to its stone age Man vs nature setting, like you really feel like you accomplish something when you advance from the stone age. The primitive buildings, researching new techs, unlocking new units - It really feels like you've evolved from cave man to Paladin... AoE 2 fixes a lot of issues and gameplay problems like depletion of resources, better defenses, more counters and better graphics, but moved to a more settlement era. Its focus is a lot more on fighting than advancing compared to AoE 1, but still nothing too excessive. AoM Felt like the true AoE 3 for me, its kept a very similar composition and has similar progression strategies. The pace is pretty similar as well. The added graphics, god powers and myth units are just a cherry on top. AoE 3 felt like a completely different game though. You no longer start out lost on some continent needing to invent the wheel or discover fire, heck you don't even have to go about looking for resources, Farms and Plantations are infinite. Almost everyone has guns with 100% accuracy, forests don't block infantry(it no longer feels cozy) and buildings are only needed for unlocking units or upgrades. Its got its perks though, the amazing graphics, Home cities, naval warfare, unique abilities for some units, trade routes, tribes, treasures, etc. Like CnC4, they changed its formula too much from the original game, that old players found too awkward to get used too and new players didn't care too much for.
When it came out, it was probably the most beautiful rts game I've ever seen. I remember my jaw dropped when I saw those gigantic (relatively) and detailed ships in the water next to a beautiful new world coastline.
Having Siege elephants and towncenter/castle on seashore made water maps for me very easy in Indian civ. I could throw any civ with siege elephants with actullay had cannons.
@@prathameshjoshi007 I'd love a day-night cycle... Make native water transports and boats be able to silently slip onto shore elsewhere, but it takes a bit of time. The maps could be made with 'harbours' in mind, where you have to/can hide things. Europeans have good vision during the day, but at night cheaper fleets can take on unprepared European fleets. I think of many of Thomas Cochrane when conceptualising this, as he did these manoeuvres both in Europe and as part of the fledgling Peru & Chili & even Brazil.
@@viniciusschadeck4992 nah the game was fun. People who like aoe2 are too biased. I honestly didn't like aoe2 at the time, and didn't play it much. So coming from AOE1 to 3, i enjoyed it a lot, though i still preferred the first one.
It’s because the grind for home city cards soured initial multiplayer reactions to the game. You basically have to play at a disadvantage for a long time.
DivineFaithborn or you can put cheats to get XP in skirmishes and then get a lot or levels. But it’s still not a great solution, it’s a good one tho, that’s what I did to get to lvl 50 in just 20-30 minutes maybe I don’t recall exactly how much time it was
@@Pac0110 This solution doesn't really matter because it wasn't around for the first ~8 years of the game. By the time the XP cheat was a thing, people had already made up their mind about the game.
Exactly and the fact it hasn't had the same new expansion treatment that 2 got over the last decade would also not have helped there at all. That alone has helped age 2 grow much larger while 3 was left in a pretty rough state Unfortunately the time period does cause issues with many of the complaints due to counters making more sense if you follow more colonial era games.
I've noticed that entertainment that start to go downhill seem to keep consitantly good soundtracks: Age of Empires, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, and LotR/Hobbit all had disappointing latter episodes/games/movies but the soundtracks stayed brilliant.
disagree, i enjoy it's gameplay since it's more relaxing than AoE2, where you have to constantly manage your army and economy in a tense environment where you can also run out of gold, rock or lumber easily as you get attacked every second and need buildings to advance to next age and tons of resources, you get no chance to win if your opponent reaches a higher age and attacks you, mechanics are hard as hell, the AI is almost impossible to beat in harder difficulties and most of players are just Rush abusive tryhards making the online play unpleasant, "gitgud" doesn't help either when most of pro people invade newbie matches... AoE3 has cool animations when moving, attacking, making a new formation or dying, there isn't something as overpowered as a castle which can be protected easily as well, walls are definitely op as well, you can just spam them everywhere in a second as the others struggle to destroy them and it's usually used to exploit the AI in campaigns such as Saladin and win unfairly, towers also have a limit in AoE3 so you don't spam them either making an impossible defense and the variety of units is fair enough, not so different than AoE2, people keep saying that AoE3 has repetitive designs... WELL then i guess the skirmishers, militia line, pikemen line, knight line, light cavalry line, and actually all lines are different in AoE2 right lol, they are both just different games with different features and gameplay, comparing them is hardly fair, i like both games but saying that only the soundtrack is AoE3 is good is not fair at all
You're not playing as an Empire in age of empires 3, you're playing as a colony of an existing Empire. Which is why you dont build up a massive empire/city like in 2.
You don't even play an empire in age 2 either, you start with a *town center*. Playing a colony would actually make more sense to have 3-5 town centers and at most 3 forts/castles in a standard game. They could have easily reduced the "lore" of your actions without reducing the amount of buildings.
@@Tudsamfa you dont start as a colony but you can build up into something that feels like an empire. My AoE3 civ always felt like a colony no matter what.
@@Tudsamfa how do you think empires were made IRL? Having a town centre, having people who can fight/explore and having ships (if your an island) and having enough precious mines to trade with or buy better stuff with. That is how empires are built. Colonies are built upon existing motherland incomes from other colonies. Hence why GBE snowballed to 189 territories in just 20 years with Victoria. Better ships, better explorers, better navigation, better trained armies, better economy. = Bigger larger better empire.
I think AO3 tried too hard to be WC3 especially in style. What I loved about AOE2 was the feeling of putting together a giant army, whereas AOE3 always felt like you were putting together skirmishes.
Imagine trying to be wc3 but having a shit ass unit battle ai. It feels so clunky to let all your units even attack or not wasting all shots on the same enemy unit. Even games like cossacks did so much better with that and it came 5 years earlier.
me: there's artillery that makes men fly, artillery i don't usually build because i always keep a strong cavalry and weird bastard artillery added in the asian dynasties that i haven't experienced with that much
There is a cannon, a cannon, a cannon and da biggest and da baddest cannon of them all! (Ottoman big bombard). Also there is yet another cannon that is free and is produced by your factory. I must say that the iroquis light cannon is pretty much a blend of different guns with average bonuses, making it an easy choice to spam.
I hated it in age of mythology too, while I get limiting them for balance reasons but the houses don't make sense in aoe3 where you have a hard cap on population that you will probably hit before reaching your house cap anyway
@@jaredfullmer7043 AoE2 limits it with stone supply. No stone in AoE3, so the Devs wanted to avoid you filling the whole maps with the (arguably quite strong in Industrial Age) outposts.
Yeah, one of my problems with AoE2 is the soundtrack. The soundtrack to the demos was awesome but not so much the full game. AoE had a great soundtrack but of course was just midis. AoE3 was just amazing with the music.
It would be interesting to have you do some sort of collaboration with Samurai Revolution who is arguably the biggest AOE3 player on UA-cam. He is sort of like your equivalent to the AOE3 community, making videos that look at mechanics and such.
@@bitcoinfandom I was a big follower or inter and he use to work at bar but then quit to join the group of both aoe2/3 casters but then that folded so I'm presuming he went back studying and is busy. However I could be wrong with this assumption but he may also be working on aoe3DE being such a big influence on the aoe3 community.
Samurai rev it's not close to the level of analisis of Sotl, SR barely dominates the basics of the game. Some of the material of Sotl applies to all RTS, while SR videos just cover some very specific strategies.
Ironically, Iroquois siege is even easier to distinguish in AOE3 compared to their European counterparts. Indians are two elephant siege units and a ranged elephant that doubles as anti-cavalry/anti-siege.
@@martytu20 that also don't have an animation for limber/fire mode. As a matter of fact, most of Asian Dynasties sieges suffer from a lack of animation between limber/fire mode, which is crazy when you think about it.
@@awellner3285 Yes they changed and no it isn't. Not the least because Iroquis isn't used to describe a race. It is used to describe an ethnical group.
Spain's prime was when both swords and guns were used. Best of both worlds, sort of. A conquistador with armour is way cooler than a Brit wearing a coat that is red. Yawn.
I have to admit that I ended up liking AOE3 more because I'm not a particular skilled AOE2 player. I've played AOE2 since its release but I just don't have the skill to do all the micro and stuff. AOE3 seems more suited for a casual player, specially if you play mostly on single player. Also, I'm a history buff and a geography teacher, and I just love the insane effort they made to give us a very diverse set of maps and scenarios in AOE3. I'm just a sucker for all those maps.
It's so much easier to do Fast fortress in AoE3 than do Fast castle in AoE2. All you have to do is herd 2 hunt when aging up and send 700 coin after in AoE3. But in AoE2 dark age micro is 5 times harder than doing all the things above, you need to micro for wood at some point, lure the boar at some point, my brain can't really handle that much.
I'd argue Age of Mythology was always the age game that could benefit from a definitive edition the most. Aom 1 and 2 both have timeless sprites and Aom 3 uses less dated unit models. I love Aom's graphics and atmosphere to death, but I get the feeling its dated graphics turn new people off. The game even has a few cinematic units that show off how amazing the game could look if it was more detailed.
It´s sad to see that many people categorize AoE3 as the "black sheep" of microsoft RTS game... Even then they forgot about my beloved Age of Mythology ;_; .
Yea... except for the fact that villager melee is stronger than their ranged, so if you want to kill anything with a villager you still need to use melee (manually)
A whole bunch of AoE 2 players started their AoE 2 gameplay as children playing on their father's plain non-gamer computer that could run AoE 2 no problem. It was a massive success because any computer could run it, from your dad's computer to a cheap computer that people in most nations can afford. Meanwhile AoE 3 came out in an awkward time where most casual gamers (even in "rich" nations) didn't have fancy graphics cards (or any cards at all) so it was slow. Graphics requirements got rid of a big portion of people that bought AOE 2 (gamers in less developed nations, casual gamers, and "children-playing-on-dad's-computer" gamers). When I was a kid I was a huge AoE 2 fan. When 3 came out I tried to run it on my family's computer and it literally exploded. I cried a lot that day.
I have the original box with me, so let's list the minimum system requirements for this 2005 game. Windows: XP - 256 MB RAM Processor: 1.4 GHz Hard Drive: 2GB Video Card: 64 MB with support for hardware transformation and lighting Other: Sound card & speakers/headphones Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56K dial-up internet access or LAN. (I'm not a techie, so I'm not sure which things are the most draining for PC's at the time)
@@liamdell6319 "hardware transformation and lighting" There you have it. T&L wasn't standard for most GPUs back then. I remember having this issue with SW Battlefront. Met all the minimum requirements but wasn't able to play it due to my GPU not supporting T&L.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Well what really happened was that the computer bricked and I smelled smoke. The computer had to be thrown out. Might as well rename myself as "Exaggerator"
It's weird. I really fell in love with and played a lot of AoE3, despite the fact I grew up playing AoE2. The civs in 2 feel a bit samey, after playing a lot of 3. Everyone has the same villagers, same men at arms, same militia and even the same Dark Age architectural style. When it comes to 3, I like the unit variety, and even the special merc units only accessible through cards or a saloon, or treasures. The game *feels* like there's a lot more interesting stuff going on, like there's more to discover down the road, but I can understand how the strategy and competitive element suffers for it. I always hated the population cap and how limited armies were in size compared to 2, as well. I was always coming up with ways to push past the unit cap. As for the home city, it was nice watching it grow and change as I leveled up. I've always loved rpgs, so that element just clicked for me. The colonial setting, too, was a bit more interesting and fresh to me than medieval, at least when I got into it.
Most games don't allow that. I've heard the reason for this is that during playtesting everyone zooms out a lot, and then complains how the game is slow-paced, units are barely distinguishable and controls are inconvenient (as the result of camera being too far from action). But as soon as the zoom out is limited, all those complaints are gone. In other words, devs prevent you from ruining your own experience.
@@MysteryD I mean that they make the game better for the vast majority of players by not letting them ruin their own experience. It's a common practice in game development, not just about zoom out.
SotL finally getting into AoE3 gameplay mechanics is like... your crush who you thought never noticed you suddenly sends you flowers So many emotions, overwhelming
@@charleswest2314 oh, we will get there, some day. But now is the time for AoE3 to shine, with all its glorious 3d graphics, physics and home cities. Aztecs and Japanese #represent
Clearly, it would be the best. Especially for a **colonial** game where exploring and having limited manpower ressources to protect a larger area is essential.
I really like age of empires 3 because of the unique way the civilizations played. Which allowed you to come up with pretty unique strategies. I do agree with the units stopping to attack was bad, as well as not being able to tell what kind of buff/nerf they have vs other units was tough.
@@Lunethia Hey, Settlers 7 was made my AOE's lead dev! Bruce Shelby is I recall correctly. It was an amazing PC-tabletop game that would have done much better if it was released in and around the PC-tabletop boon. Alas, it has very little to do with the Settlers series.
I personally loved the time period of AoE3 more and hope they explore it further. The home cards, music, combat, ragdoll effect from cannon shots , the ability to gain map based bonuses based on native alliances that let you blend your troops not to mention the music etc. all just come together to make a fantastic game. I think outside of a few minor issues or gripes the core issue was fan expectations and perhaps not liking range becoming the core focus(despite hand combat being in AoE3 a large chunk of units were/are based on range combat). Regardless of what people think im actually glad the devs took risk with this game and pushed for a less attempted time period for a RTS.
I really hoped Age of Empires 4 will sort of unite time periods of both previous games, sadly its more of a Age of Empire 2 2, with sliight overlap with early period of Age of Empires 3. But i guess its resonable, by numbers of AoE 2 and AoE 3 fans. (Different thing that AoE 4 still defeated by same AoE 2, so they will just stick to making AoE 2 DLC)
I would argue that your channel also had a small, but considerable, effect in AoE2's popularity. I, for instance, was already a fan of AoM and AoE3, but never cared much about AoE2 until I discovered your channel. The sheer quality of your videos, and the passion put in them, made me reconsider my views on AoE2. I still prefer AoM and AoE3, but thanks to you I learned to appreciate AoE2's gameplay and community a lot more.
Honestly because I understand Aoe2 so much more, knowing all this hidden info I'll probly never use due to not having the mental speed for it quite yet, I'm more likely to enjoy it. Though... Ain't my fave, tbh... I'm all about Empire Earth instead. xD
That's true, AoE2 was always my fav game while AoE3 and AoM are just casuals for me, but the content that spirit makes with AoE2 is impressive not only within Age, but in general . I recently started playing LoL, supposedly the biggest videogame, and I was confused on how there wasn't a SOTL-like UA-camr.
I think if it weren't for SotL, T90, T-West, pro streamers like Viper, Hera and a few others, AoE2 wouldn't have the popularity it has today. I don't know of any AoE3 content creators with that kind of following. There are also a lot of following in other languages with pro streaming in other languages (Spanish and Chinese for example).
@@fabriziomariano1332 Because LoL is very transparent when it comes to mechanics unlike AOE2. There is no question unanswered when it comes to gameplay in this game.
Same here :) ... AoM + Titans were my favorite and the after i start following UA-camr like Solt and T90 i had to reconsider AoE2, which now i think is the best :D with the ultimate gameplay for this type of games. Arguably even better the Star Craft
One major thing overlooked! Aoe 3 at time of release needed a much better pc, graphics card to even run, while my original aoe2 ran off the mother board itself; people didn’t have resources they do now in this day and age 😁
As someone that is an avid Age of Mythology veteran, I can confirm that the reason the armies feel sluggish is mainly because the army will base it's speed on the slowest unit, for example an Egyptian war elephant. It's not difficult to get used to, often times you'll want to select your fastest troops first to get them out, while letting your slower troops skirmish with the attacking army. If you want to save your slow troops, have them on a retreat path while you fend off the attackers with your fast troops. There's a lot that goes into it macro wise, especially if you're retreating your titan from the battlefield and you need some troops to cover for it.
@@Appletank8sort of, while there are slow units (archers, elephants) the slowdown is usually worsened by "traffic" while moving too many units in the same direction. You can insert fast troops to defend the slow ones but they'll actually worsen the "traffic"
I always preferred Age 3, and I started with Age 1 back in the late 90's. So Age 4 was a massive disappointment for me, because it just felt like 5 steps back, and none forward.
I really do hope you start making AOE3 videos in the future. There isnt many youtubers out there talking about this game, let alone of the quality of your videos. Its a new mindset that you have to have with AOE3. As you said there isnt much investing in what you build and its very fast paced. In deepth knowledge on what to use when and agains what makes the difference, thats why the civs are so different to one another. I believe the devs intended to have that focused, instead of the general knowledge that you need in AOE2.
yeah I really prefer he make a series to cover the mechanics of this game because Samurai Revolution as a youtuber is good and all but Spirit comes at these games with mathmatics in mind.
I have played Age nearly every day for 20 years. The "The emotional commitment" you mentioned to city building and defending your personal investment is why I'm still 1620 ELO...
I like both aoe2 and aoe3, but one of the first things that became appartent when I started aoe 3 was the diplomacy. Age of empires 3 didn't let you change allies, have a neutral statues etc. I am guessing it is due to team cards.
you'll be pleased to know DE now includes this as an option, ON by default i believe, for Free for all matches, and it works identically to aoe2 system as well, a very positive inclusion
Coming from Aoe3 to Aoe2 I found many of the same intuitive struggles, but in reverse. It still hurts my head to think that 10 unarmed villagers slapping a stone tower is actually the effective and preferred strategy to destroy it?!
I love both games but i prefer aoe3 and the biggest reason is that in Aoe2 all civs looks EQUAL AF. In aos3 threaded units same to each other's yes but strategically talking aoe3 feels they have unique civs.
Really? You think someone bashing a wall with a sword or trying to pierce it with an arrow is more intuitive than someone burrowing the ground below it?
I have to say that I prefer AoE3 when it comes to civ design. They feel very different from each other in a way that AoE2's never did. Just all the weird quirks some civs have when it comes to villagers makes them stand out a lot.
That’s why I enjoy it. Love the balance and stuff from aoe2 but the fact that every civ is very similar with their units, save for the unique unit, gets a bit boring after a while.
@@jacforse7642 I agree. Obviously there is a trade off in adding to the learning curve but I don't think the game would be remembered at all if it was a AoE2 reskin like the Star Wars RTS the uses the same engine.
While I agree with the assessment, I think that accessibility not the only cause of AOE3 lack of favor with people. There are two , in my opinion, big points that I think get AOE 3 down: A) Age of empires 1 and 2 were a 90's franchise that could run on *any computer* made after 1996. Good pc, bad pc, windows 98, xp or 7, you could run it. Age of Empires 3 made all but the best computers of the era just *crawl*. Especially the naval battles which made your fps drop to single digits even after several patches, on lowest graphics, on a strong computer. This limited the fan base to people with new computers that could run the new game, which not all age fans could afford, especially outside of America and Europe's middle class. This alone was not enough, but with the after mentioned accessibility issues it could doom the game, and then we have problem B... B) The game fucked up it's own setting. Age 1 focused on antiquity - The Hellenic-Roman, Mesopotamian, Levantine and Far eastern cultures all got campaigns, scenarios, or civs to play as, and it ended with an expansion focused on Rome and late antiquity - which where Age 2 begins, focusing on the rise from the dark age to the high middle ages, and ends with an expansion that looked mostly towards the end of the era - the discovery of the new world. In short, massive variety of factions from all over the world, lots of historical campaigns, even if of dubious accuracy. By comparison Age 3, while continuing the timeline, going from the discovery of the Americas to the industrial revolution, suffers from being too focused not only on colonialism, but *American* colonialism. The default building set for everyone is north American log cabins, the settlers are all vaguely American, the campaigns are an assassins creed 3 esque story fictional story about secret societies and the fountain of youth and just...why. The 8 european factions, 3 native and 3 asians simply didn't hold a candle, no matter how unique, to the variety brought by age 2 (not counting HD) and it's 4 Western European, 4 Eastern European, 2 Mesoamerican, 4 Asian, and 4 Middle Eastern factions. that's 18 factions from across the world, with only 1 expansion. Even for Europeans the setting was limited: No English Civil War, no German war of unification, no napoleon, no 30 years war, no 7 years war, no great northern war, no fighting against the ottoman, again the nonsense with Germany being a thing before the 1870's, etc. TL;DR - It ran like shit when it came out, and the setting was done very poorly and focused too much on the US.
I remember having to buy a new graphics card to be able to play water maps on on AoE3 when it first came out, which was the first time I'd ever bought an individual component for a PC as I'd just played games on family PCs up to that point.
Your second point is exactly my thoughts. It is no joke that Age of Empires 1 is what started my love of history, and while AoE 1's history was tacked on at best, it still sparked my interest. AoE 2's campaigns were amazing to me as a kid, I played through them so many times, it was cool to learn about things across the globe. AoE 3 just dropped the ball tremendously, when I learned it was exclusively from a colonial perspective with a fantasy story about the fountain of youth I was immediately turned off from the game. That paired with it feeling like all the bad parts of Age of Mythology with none of the good parts just killed the game for me.
If you wanted a single player game in 2005 what you instead received was a game with a very strange campaign and random map AI that did not actively use its factions unique characteristics or units. WarChiefs and Asian Dynasties helped and give me hope for DE, but the original just did not offer much compared to the first two AoE games.
ConscriptDavid Agreed, Also the controversy of those fictional stories in single player adds up but never mind Let's talk about what really ruined this game popularity ! To make things worse Microsoft firing the team behind this game 'Ensemble Studio' and leave absolutely no one in game managements and remove all customer support emails leaving AOE3 Community on their own facing tons of bugs, lot of unfinished work, and hackers.. While this game had it's own T_ime to shine but unfortunately it stopped and lost it's most loyal people.. Well you can add this the to that list of 'cause of AOE3 lack of favor'
Finally some sense. Didn't play 3 until I was an adult for this reason, and by that time I was too interested in competitive multiplayer for it to stand a chance against 2.
generally in aoe3, I feel like the devs were trying to mitigate unit micro where soldiers dodge arrows and whatnot and the mechanics really incentivize actually playing battles like real colonial era battles would go, with stationary line infantry, cavalry on the flanks, and canons in back (and melee infantry like pikes, rodelero, or natives in front as canon fodder lol)
First, and most importantly, the medieval brand is easier to sell, that's the most important thing. The medieval period has vikings and samurai and mongols and saracens and celts, the list goes on and on. The decidedly euro-centric initial offering of AoE3 made stuff *feel* very similar, even though they were very dynamically different under the hood. Second, the faster pace was really, really punishing on new players, a problem which was magnified by really poor game balance at launch. Very quickly skilled players gravitated to the Spanish, then the Ottomans and just started crushing people with hyper-aggressive rush tactics. This created a monoculture in the online community which really hurt the sense off variety and fun of the experience. AoK is very, very turtle-friendly, and while that doesn't work at the highest levels of play, it will keep you in the game long enough to get attached to the game. Third, the Home City XP grinding was a huge turn-off, basically locking people in even more into the flavor of the month metagame. If Ottoman were OP, you had to grind your Ottoman city, so you played a lot of Ottoman vs Ottoman vs Ottoman games so you could improve your Ottoman deck. Later releases helped a lot by fixing up balance and adding non-European civs, but by then it was kind of too late.
its easier to sell maybe back then. but by god that time period is so stale now. AOE3 was really fresh-maybe to fresh to ppl like those who are stuck in the dark ages. i dont mean to be rude but it feels fitting.
@@m00rtin4 I think you'll find yourself in the minority. I don't disagree with you, the medieval period is somewhat over-exposed, but AoE4 is re-visiting the period for a reason.
@@AaronMichaelLong Agreed, and the way games like Witcher 3, Skyrim, the Mount and Blade Series, and Kingdom Come blew up in popularity shows that the medieval/fantasy themes are pretty much timeless classics, and are certainly not going away anytime soon.
I understand where your coming from with the idea that AOE3 counters are less intuitive based on the way they look, but I feel that the argument is undermined somewhat by the fact that AOE3 actually tells you what bonus damage units have, as opposed to AOE2 where you are just given a description in the tech tree that says "Cataphract: Byzantine unique unit. Heavily armored cavalry," it's almost like there is a reason why UA-cam channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers exist just to try and explain what AOE2's mechanics actually are.
also the fact if you know anything about history the name is very intuitive. For example the skirmishers vs musketeers example. Musketeers were design to provide a mass of bullets down range and deal as much damage as possible before charging in with bayonets. The vast of majority of battles ended not because one side got shot to death but instead broke formation and fled due to a successful bayonet charge. Skirmishers on the other hand did not fight in line formations but instead spread out and out in front of the enemies and were intended to prod and eliminate enemies with more accurate fire. The same with cannons. When they actually entered the battlefield (not just as a siege weapon) they were designed to soften and break up enemy formations. As a result anti cannons became necessary which is where the culverin comes in. The culverin had a much longer barrel giving it unparalleled accuracy and velocity (increasing effective rang) and as we see on the game model has the capability of aiming far higher then any other cannons (that's what that brown this at the back of the barrel was for) allowing it to shoot far farther than the other cannons which were either locked into a horizonal fire or had a limited capability to aim up. This allowed it to hit the cannons in the backline of the enemies.
@@a-drewg1716 That's a lot of history about weapons and war in the colonial age for the average player to know for it to be intuitive, so for most players it's not.
@@a-drewg1716 that isn't intuitive at all lol most schools don't even touch on subject of what military was used in aoe3 period except "slow reloading rifles" and like half of units in aoe3 are just that
Something that I love soo much about 3 is the little details. Like... They had unique voice lines for specific units, not just civs. The Swiss pikemen speak a different german than actual german units, with a specific voice. Same with lansquenetes. The Hakapell, the Elmeti, etc. All had unique voices and dialogues. It actually made them feel like real mercenaries, you can tell they're clearly from somewhere else, not from your empire. I also find it funny that, the heavier a unit is, the deeper the voice. Heavy cannons use really deep voices, while light infantry use more high pitched voices. It's funny but... It kinda makes sense? Like, just by the voices you can tell what kind of unit it is.
There are tons of details in AOE3, and like you said about languages, this is the first game that I heard Albanian language in any game (Stradiots talk albanian), they made their research . Also pretty much every unique upgrade have unique name with good correlation in real life event which makes this even more impressive.
I love how age 3 emphasis on history too. I play mostly as Ottoman. Ottoman is known as gun powder empire with strong cavs. But they were the sick man of Europe. So otto eco 🤢. Or how they depicted GREAT bombard fearsome but ineffective. But you take it lightly. I loved how they depicted Russia or India too.
One of the details is you get to know each unit by it's profile with time. For example let's use the musket/skirmisher comparison Heavy infantry comes in 2 flavors. Melee and ranged. Melee HI is simple to identify, if you see a guy running with fancy armor, melee infantry. If you see a guy with a gun, fancy hat and bayonet and a backpack, it's HI. Another thing is musketeer units always keep their guns in the shoulder. Compare that to Light infantry. Usually they hold their weapon with both hands instead of the shoulder. Also they are overall less chunkier. No hat, no big sword/bayonet, no backpack. You can also tell by the multipliers. If you see a lot of multipliers in the top and few in the bottom, it's light infantry. If it has very few multipliers on top but a lot in bottom, heavy infantry.
It also had millions of sales and it was not a commercial failure and it was not responsible for Ensemble Studios going bankrupt as many people say. (This was for external causes as I understand it). Although it is not the most played, it has an active and stable community.
I really like the 'feel' and immersion of AoE III, I get really pulled into the game and I end up feeling somewhat connected to the time period as a result. Having said that I would *hate* to play it competitively. All of the quirks and oddities make for a great single player experience- I like that my units get into specific formations, I like that it lets me feel like I am having proper pitched battles and I like that skirmishes for resources are common early on, but tend not to devolve into all out war until later, but all of these things are basically only possible in single player, and they happen because I feel the game is 'inviting me' to do them. Oh and as an asside, I think I actually like the time period more than AoE II, it feels less nostalgic but more 'gritty' and has more of an 'action' feel to it as though I'm playing a dangerous game of decision making, whereas AoE II feels more "grand strategy" like I'm off in the distance deciding thing. That's a very personal preference though, and it's some of the mechanics that hold it back from being quite as 'legendary' as AoE II
I only play multiplayer and I get into skirmishes over early resources (with larger battles happening later), depends how you play. As for unit formation and all the criticism of it being slow by the video, I like the formations and if you play enough you get good at maneuvering your inf, calv, and arty almost in the intended way as they would have during the historical era of line battles
What you mentioned about counters is actually pretty important. I would say it gets even worse though in Empire Earth, where not only is there a complicated triangle of "Shock", "Pierce" and "Arrow" units (and oftentimes it's difficult to determine which unit is either of those) but when you get into ages dominated by gunpowder, tanks or most unintuitive of all, _mechs,_ you'll basically have no idea what the counters are. The worst part is that the game contains no in-game instructions, so someone who had the game back in the day would have to refer to their manual frequently. That being said, Empire Earth is still a pretty epic game... maybe you should --please do a video about it sometime--
EE1 (very complex) and EE2 (very very complex) are close to my heart. (EE1's soundtrack is rank 1 for me.) Of course, they were never near to Age 2 in popularity because ultimately the single player campaigns end, the skirmishes/random-maps against AI become boring, and people need Multiplayer. EE1 and EE2 are way more complicated (consequently, slow) for multiplayer.
Algunas razones que yo veo: 1) Para la fecha en que se lanzó AoE3, el género rts venía perdiendo fuerza. 2) La curva de aprendizaje es mucho más lenta que con AoE2, cada civi es distinta, cada carta es distinta y el orden en que las uses genera miles de alternativas de juego posibles. Dominar el juego requiere demasiadas horas de aprendizaje y jugarlo es más complejo que jugar al 2. (Aunque una vez que aprendes todas esas dinámicas, puede ser mucho más entretenido y es mucho más difícil caer en la monotonía). 3) Los gráficos no corrían en muchos de los computadores de la época. A mí recién ahora me corre el juego, de niño cuando se lanzó no me corría ni el demo. 4) La edad media es más popular que la edad moderna en el imaginario colectivo. 5) La campaña es entretenida pero no está a la altura de las de AoE2, principalmente porque no refleja hechos históricos (se farrearon una gran oportunidad teniendo las civis que tenían). Ahora en DE han sacado algunas "batallas históricas" y son geniales. Pero creo que las razones 2 y 3 son las principales de por qué la comunidad nunca se pasó del todo al AoE3. Por mi parte, me encanta toda la saga, incluido AoE1 y AoM (y Galactic Battlegrounds)
Holandeses y plantas los 6 bancos para oro infinito, 10 colonos en cada recurso y cuando las minas de oro y plata se acaben mandas a los colonos libres a los otros recursos, dos colonos para construcción 4 edificios de artillería y haces 50 cañones de campaña, y luego avanzas lento y contento contra el enemigo jajaja
@@kevinquintana3085es super fácil counterear a los holandeses, todo eso aunque parezca una "ventaja" en verdad no lo es, los bancos con todas las cartas y mejoras que le puedas agregar al fin de cuentas cuentan como 30 - 40 aldeanos que son justo la cantidad de aldeanos que les hace falta. El resto de civilizaciones tienen un límite de 100 aldeanos mientras que los holandeses tienen 60.
As a huge history buff, I don't feel that either of the examples you made about AoE3's units not being obvious to figure out were difficult to figure out, but that, in itself, illustrates your point about the time period and game being less accessible. You don't have to know anything about history to know that a shield can stop an arrow, but knowing the nuances between light and heavy Napoleonic infantry requires an above-average knowledge not just of history, but of that period's military history.
And that's why I like it :) IT gets you to learn about an overlooked period of history; people go Egyptians-Greek-Romans-Castles-Tanks without thinking of all that cool history in-between.
To be frank, I really didn't understand that criticism. Like, just click on the unit and you can see it does X2 against heavy infantry. In AOE2, how am I supposed to know a cataphract is anti-anti-cavalry cavalry? AOE3 pikes will tell you they do 8X5 against cav. In AOE2, I think halbs do +32? Can't remember, cause there's nothing to tell you. In AOE3, if you don't know the puspose of your units, you're just not looking.
a shield can also stop a sword. mangonels and onagers were rarely used against infantry. pikes were heavy defensive units against cavarly and infantry. men-at-arms were heavy cavarly. etc
I agree, for these reasons: 1) Despite the civilizations being different, they are not really distinct enough from each other in the fact the units variety is so similar, they all are just different skinned versions of guys with muskets or guys on horses compared to something like Starcraft or AoM where the units are very distinct. 2) There are so many civilizations that having unique civs becomes a drawback having to learn them all, again compared to Starcraft or AoM where they are significantly different from each other, but there's only 3 or so to learn.
@@L3monsta there are actually a variety of unit designs such as the Cassador, Strelet, Ruyter, Cossacks, Oprichnik, longbowmen, rodeleros, doppelsoldners, Uhlans, Abus Guns, spanish pikemen, spahi, all the elephants, cuisassiers, steppe riders and actually all the chinese, japanese, indians and native american tribes that have different units lol, not even mentioning the mercenary units... the game wasn't supposed to be the same as AoE2, AoE1 wasn't the same as AoE2 either so of course you need to relearn about the units and features
Same. The muskets and whatnot just never really connected with me as much as just running up and hitting each other with swords and axes. And I like the pacing and variety AOM brings more than I do the uniformity and minor variations AOE2. But apparently hardly anyone else really likes AOM. I don't get it.
@@LegendKingY2j "AoE1 wasn't the same as AoE2 either" AoE2 took the AoE1 formula and enhanced it. AoE3 dropped the AoE1&2 formula to try something else. so your point is kinda moot.
AoM was great, it's main drawback was the most of the minor Gods and many of the major Gods were sorely imbalanced, competitively some choices were just *bad*, like Odin, Gaia, Set (after it was nerfed into the ground) or Atlanteans in general.
One of the ways to micro in AOE3 is splitting snared units away from the rest of the group. This eliminates the slow of the group at the cost of that unit (usually).
The number ONE detriment to age 3, which kept me from playing it alot more (or even finishing it) are the fantasy-esque non-historical campaigns, they're not BAD, but a big appeal for me on Age of Empires games is the history.. that said, if im not misremembering, infantry comes out of barracks in batchs of up to 5 units at once, which i found AWESOME.
Interesting. History has always been my passion (Even got a History degree) but I never minded the non-historical Age 3 campaigns. I absolutely loved Age 2 for its historical campaigns, AOM for its take on Mythology and Age 3 for how it used historical myths to tell a fantasy story. What I didn't like was how the Asian campaigns tried to move back in the direction of Age 2 by being based on historical events (fictional for the Chinese) while also trying to make them dramatic in nature. The drama worked in the original campaign because you were following one family throughout the ages, in AD it falls flat because between setting the stage and introducing the characters you have little time to care about anything or anyone. And te missions are boring, which didn't help.
I think a factor that might seem discouraging at first glance is that, in addition to the grinding, is that the learning curve is much more steep due to the Deck Building Mechanic , that while amazing, requires a lot testing: The advantage is that you optimize and experiment with different game styles that better suit you, designing counters and accounting to situational advantages, but landing in that sweet spot is quite difficult and time consuming.
oh i have been waiting for a video like this for so long. The snare effect is always driving me crazy, not only when i'm taking extra hits, but also when i'm raiding and enemy villagers can't run and i kill them all without a sweat. AND NO HILL BONUS
It's funny my favorite game from these popular franchises are always the most unpopular ones. Empire earth 3 Rise of nations Rise of legends Age of empires 3
Good to see this game get some love. Personally however, the building limits were the thing that put me off most. It just feels so forced to not be able to build another tower, even though you have the resources.
If you can just spam towers, there is no point in defending your walls with all your army, just make an insane lot of towers and a litlle army of culverins and cannons and that's it, boring as hell. With a card u have 14 tower limit, that's enough to help a lot but not decide the whole match.
Well tbh, before I learned counters, I would've thought that a skirmisher throwing a goddamn javelin with perfect accuracy should be a counter to literally any armored unit, but this is not the case.
Javelins don’t have a high armor piercing value because you are basically throwing something by hand It makes sense that something like that wouldn’t pierce armor But would inflict high damage against lowly armored targets
I grew with AoE2 as a kid, played it since 6yo until 18 more or less. Has a high sentimental value, but nowadays with little time and a hunger for variety, I just play an AoE3 mod called Wars of Liberty (40+ nations) that expands the saga's era from 1500 to 1800 so is a perfect AoE3. The issue is that AoE3 games are very short and really fast, so are perfect for me. I think the gameplay gets faster with each game of the serie, even raiding has a bigger impact, and analyzing your enemy's cards is vital for strategy. You have to adapt to the possible strategy. Another thing that draws me to WoL from AoE2 is that it has more features (spies, immigrants, export, and a well done counter unit game). I still play AoE2 when I have time or nostalgia, specially with the campaigns (campaigns the big weakness of AoE3), but if I want an intense 20min game, is just WoL (aoe3wol.com) all the way.
Aoe 2 is way faster while playing, you haven't played the ranked pool yet, so it feels slow to you, when you will play aoe2 you will see that the game has much more to manage than aoe3 both in macro and micro.
@@jaygaglani9377 all games seems fast when you are playing them, so I can agree. But you are understanding the amount of care you need to take while playing AoE3, because having more automated things doesn't mean you are leaving them alone. You will always be changing 1 or 2 villagers from resource, looking and securing positions for next gathering, raiding, preparing and rushing. If you plan to go fast to age 3, perhaps you'll die. Scouting for gold, hunt, and key treasures is vital, because treasures can give you an edge over your enemy. Micromanaging units still makes a difference in battles, surrounding from the back to pass artillery through your blade. AoE3 matches are way more open, you don't see walls, is mostly a waste of wood, so you don't have that little relax of being safe behind a wall. Your base will be open, and protection is more active than passive (no walls, and almost never towers). So, yes, all games feel fast when playing them, but in AoE3 action comes to you way sooner faster and harder, and doesn't mean you don't have to micro and macro manage, on the contrary, you have tons of things to do. AoE2 and AoE3 are completely different in style and pace.
Another issue is efficacy. In 3 you do not see the villagers bringing wood or coin or food to the town center. You know distance from the town center effects your speed of production but how much? In 2 for very little wood you can build a supply and place it right near the source. In short I wish 3 would have also had supply depots or granaries that you can put near the resources.
I played all the AOE/AOM games when they came out. Way back when, I liked AOE3 much more because of the better controls, QoL features, and clearer unit bonuses. I'm not sure, even in retrospect, how having to do less economic micromanaging affected my opinion. I'd suspect that not having to focus as much on economy was a bonus for me since my main goal was building up a town and conquering the enemy. These days, with expanded knowledge of the AOE2, I feel like the better balance and economic focus would better appeal to me if I had the time to get into it. While I'm excited for AOE3 DE, I really can't wait for AOE4 as it's supposed to have less but more varied civs (getting back into AOE2 is tough with all the adulting I do as there are so many civs that it's overwhelming).
AoE2 makes it simply by having mostly similar units/buildings per civs, balancing them out and giving each of them a handful unique units or features. Never felt overwhelming to me at all.
Initially I couldn't transfer to AOE3 easily as well, but after I really got into it, I couldn't stop. I've become really good in civilizations and metropolies, so I've come to love it. Now it feels natural the same AOE1 and 2 are.
Well, with age iii, I liked the fact that they gave Spain crossbows. I was completely baffled in the Montezuma campaign when I saw the Spanish having archers and the Aztecs had crossbows. I thought: “Hold up. Shouldn’t that be the other way around?” I get that it was a gameplay issue, but still. I saw that the Incas in the Definitive Edition for Age III also don’t have any corral. Historically the Incas did adopt cavalry during their wars against the Spanish. I’m still glad they at least get represented as well.
On the note that you mentioned about factions being wildly different, I have a game that I think might interest you that takes the Age 3 approach. It’s called War Selection. To put it short, you get a choice when aging up between how your faction specializes. So in the Stone Age you can pick between europe and Asia, and once again past that for each tree with it. West Europe vs East Europe and West Asia vs East Asia. And it goes even more when you get to choose a real country in the Industrial Age. So over the course of a single match you are watching your civilization get more and more exciting units and buildings along with your enemy, and it makes the game feel very immersive, reaching its final stage as every Industrial country playing wildly different from any other.
I think another significant reason is that there is no concept of "trash unit" in aoe3. The wood scarcity in aoe3 does not really matter when food and gold units perform better anyways. Also, the settlers and town center were much weaker in aoe3 compared to the villagers and town center in aoe2. The lack of defense in aoe3 made it all about rushing. You could just take out their whole town no matter how many settlers hid in the town center. In fact, the outposts, forts, and priests barely mattered in aoe3 while the towers, castles, and monks mattered a lot in aoe2. The low population cap (due to higher per-unit population) combined with instant unit spawns in aoe3 was weird too.
Things I like about AoE3: Better customization in both deck and home city I actually feel like the civilization I am playing Strategies used in 1700s warfare actually work and can be counter by guerilla warfare More distinctive units and buildings Campaign was so diverse making it a good Odyssey and even tho it was crazy it could be easily explained Good game modes Maps are immersive, you can drain their resources, capture wild animals, rescue natives or settlers from bandits or dangerous animals, building trading posts to establish a native relationship or start your own locomotive industry Infinite resources that will help on players that play for longer times Even if your entire city dies you can use some settles to create refugees to try to reconstruct it with shipments (In AI battles) the other Civs react at your actions according if they are enemies or allies. They whole damage and class system can easily be viewed in the unit's picture or description You can play a civ in many different ways and still do great Things I don't like about AoE3: AI can easily softlock whenever they feel they lost, even if you give them thousands of resources they wont revive their colony The Civs are not that well balanced Multiplayer is really hard to join and hard to be part of the community if you are low level Some build limits are not that much reasonable like 7 outposts, 10 would be a better number The buildings can get lost in the ambience The DLC campaigns are shorter IMO
I've spent a lot of time playing both. 3 being my favourite. I like a lot how they are different, because you can still switch between these game to play different matches. I really love that there is so much difference between the civilisations in aoe3. I really loved the expansions that added 6 wholly unique civs.
As someone who loves rts games, I think Starcrafts success in Esports kinda poisioned what everyone though was important. The vast majority of people who play rts games do not play mutliplayer they play campaigns AND custom modes. That was the key to Warcraft III's success, not it's relatively forgotten multiplayer.
3:29 I think you underestimate how completely non counter intuitive the counter system works in aoe2, with all it's hidden bonuses. There are MANY. It's a big learning curve. Try to explain it to people that don't know the game and you realize how hard it is to figure out. I think AOE3 is actually easier because the counter system are in broad categories and not weirdly specific as in AOE2. Like scouts doing bonus damage just against monks, or militia line having bonus against eagles.
Spears -> cavalry Cavalry -> archers/infantry Archers -> infantry Infantry -> Spears Skirmishers -> Archers Monk -> Cavalry Light cavalry -> Monk Siege -> Building UU are generally strong units. That's it, really. You don't need to know more than this when you start playing and most of this is common knowledge born out of how the various medias tell us that medieval battles go. Both in movies and games you see archers raining down on infantry, spears killing cavalry, cavalry charges being brutal. Now, let's go over the Napoleonic period. We have: Cavalry -> Siege Skirmishers -> other infantry Pikes -> cavalry Siege -> All But, what about the native civs? Their entire roosters are unique. Same for the Asians. Why do Samurai obliterate everything? Why do Japanese have better musketeers than Europeans? What do all Chinese units do? What about all the unique European units???
@@khankhomrad8855 You can say that in broad categories but there are so many exceptions to the rule that it makes it hard, especially then there is no information on the unit card. Like Skirms counters archers only. In Rome total war, javelins counters cavalry and elephants and they are countered by archers due to their shorter range. In aoe2 javelins does one damage to elephants and does no extra damage against cavalry. we can make lot of exceptions to any category you listed. I like it though as it makes battle more complicated and dynamic, but it can be very frustrating for newer players. I do agree on the native civs you listed though, it's also non intuitive, but it's easy to read though
@@khankhomrad8855 In aoe3, as far as I remember is: Light Infantry -> Heavy Infantry and Light Cavalry Heavy Infantry -> Buildings and Heavy Cavalry Light Cavalry -> Heavy Cavalry Heavy Cavalry -> Light Infantry and Cannons Cannons -> Buildings and Infantry Heavy units have good Melee Combat. Light units are focused on countering and are only good on Ranged Combat. Cannons are powerful but very fragile to Melee.
@@teo.reinehr You are correct and that illuminates the issue. The counter system of Age 3 isn't that complex but you need to understand the individual units and most of them you can't guess what they do just by looking at them. Age 2 is pretty much the opposite; the counter system has a lot of exceptions (courtesy of UU's) and you can (mostly) guess what are the unit's roles just by looking at them.
@@khankhomrad8855 It's really easy, though in Age 3 Heavy infantry -> general purpose Light infantry -> Heavy infantry + Hand infantry Hand infantry -> Cavalry Cavalry -> Artillery + light infantry Ranged cavalry -> Cavalry Artillery -> infantry + buildings. That's it. The ashigaru, the euro musketeer and the tomahawk are all heavy ranged infantry, so you know how to counter them. Strelets, skirmishers, crossbows; those are all light infantry. The difference is that instead of saying "pikes", you have to think "hand infantry". There are, of course, exceptions, but there are many of those, too in AOE2. Edit: sorry, didn't sealise someone already drew the chart
This is the main reason I can never get into age3. Whenever I reinstall an age game I always go do the campaigns first, but the age 3 campaign is just... yuck. Annoying voiceacting, uninteresting story and no cool historical conflicts. For a fantasy story, AoM, or something else completely like WC3, do much better by far.
I think Age of Empires 3 was just a different game to what AoE 2 fans expected. Doesn't mean it's bad at all, and my first experience of AoE was AoE 3 and a lot of the "shortcomings" of that game were all things that came completely naturally to me.
Flavio Sobbin that ones from historical basis. Camels work a lot better than horses in deserts and so they had an advantage in fighting. Also I believe there was something involving horses panicking due to the stench of the camels
It’s the unit count for me. AoE 3’s lower unit count + siege/ships taking up much larger populations than the previous games’ universal 1, make the game feel more streamlined and simple to me, especially in a game that already has a smaller unit variety than 2. There’s only so much you can do within the limits of the vanilla game. You build everything you can build, and then you go attack the enemy with the typical mix of artillery cavalry and infantry. Every game feels the same on AoE 3, AoE 2 feels like it’s possibilities are endless in comparison. Especially with the remakes of 2 raising the vanilla population limit and max map size of the game, 2 just feels so much more massive in scale. By the late game the cities are sprawling, dozens of villagers are bustling around working, and the armies can be massive. 2 puts the “Empire” in Age of Empires, the ceiling is so high for how powerful you can get. 3 feels more like… Age of Settlement. Tbh if they had kept the game centered in the “old world”, had the main maps be larger and set in the traditional places of the series and more akin to 2, with attached “satellite” maps you could send your units to travel to within a game to set up colonies as we see them in the actual game… it could have been something truly special. 3 should have been 2’s post-imperial age expanded to include colonization for the colonial era. Instead it separates you from the Empires that give the franchise its name and confines you to the colonized fringes of the world. The time period could have given us the ability to recreate massive early-modern wars like the Napoleonic Wars and the 7 years war. Experience the full extent of what an empire was at a time that brought about the first wars that could be considered global conflicts. Instead we get to experience what is in the grand scheme of things a tiny backwoods theatre in much larger wars. You can no longer annihilate and conquer the enemy empires. You can only… take frontier land from them and make them surrender.
The oddest change in AoE3 for me are the stances. Every unit type has its own set of stances, which mostly adds surprise micromanagement to the game as you _can't_ order an _entire_ group to enter a stance. You have to _manually_ set the stance for each unit type within the group, else you end up wondering why half of your army is running all over the place after ordering them to Stand Ground.
you forgot to mention you can make infantary and cav 5 units at the time, wich combined wth cards, it means your army can be desimated and the next second you have 20 new units ready to go
4:39 As a player who actually likes AoE3 very much, it pains me to say this, but the identities of Musketeers vs. Skirmishers are actually even more nuanced and confusing than this. As of the expansions, Skirmishers *aren't* light infantry - they are just classified as "infantry". Musketeers are classified as both heavy infantry AND infantry, because units in AoE3 can have multiple types assigned to them. What "light infantry" actually applies to are a few particular units which *look* like infantry, but function essentially as cavalry, hence why attacks against them are nearly as effective as they would be against units that are considered cavalry. Off the top of my head, the only examples of actual "light infantry" I can think of are Rattan Shields, Tiger Claws, Eagle Runner Knights, and Coyote Runners - the former two being a native trade post units, and the latter two belonging to the Aztecs, who obviously have no cavalry. To muddy the waters even further, these units are NOT also considered "infantry", and therefore do not take bonus damage from the usual anti-infantry sources. Except the Tiger Claw... because. Consequently, don't think that weird "light infantry" attack bonus your Musketeers have in melee combat is going to help very much against Skirmishers. Their melee attacks will bypass Skirmishers' anti-ranged armor at least, and Musketeers have better melee combat than Skirmishers do overall, but you won't be getting a 2.25x damage modifier against them.
Actually, AoE2 has similar multi-unit-type thing behind the scene. Take camels as an example, irrc, they are "Calvary", "Camels" and even "Ships" for whatever reason before the expansion. Similar thing happens to most unique units as well. The only different is, AoE2 made all that hidden, while AoE3 decided to be more open to the player.
interesting how the same points are applied to Civilization, but in reverse (I'm referencing the part where each nation in AoE2 feels the same). I've seen countless times people criticizing Civilization for all the nations having the same playstyle and same end goal, while in AoE2 it is, apparantely, an upside. Guess it's just personal preference
it's always stumped me. The graphics were WAY better for Age 3, and man we put our heart and soul into that game. We always attributed it to the fact that vikings and samurai are sexier than hussars and musketeers. We actually set as a goal to win the E3 best graphic award for Age 3, a prize which was almost always won by a first-person-shooter. And we did it! Source: I was one of the main developers for both Age 2 and Age 3.
Sandy, I was extremely young when I played and I speak from what today you'd call single player? 3 seemed to be more like AoM and it works there beautifully but the campaign in 3 didn't live up to it. So it wasn't what we were expecting so kids stuck to 2 and AoM.
My dad said the third game was "3D for no reason" and his computer could not play it as a result.
It is awesome that we can get insights like this in a youtube comment, this should be higher!
Assuming you are authentic, on the internet anybody can say anything and I am lazy to investigate as almost anybody
It is so nice to read the comments sometimes
its not always about graphics
It is not your fault Sandy. Age of Empires 3 did not "fail" because it was worse. It failed because it was released too late. The RTS was a dying and nearly dead genre in 2005. With the exception of Starcraft 2 nothing recovered. People lost interest in the genre as a whole and just stuck with their guns on their favourite game. I say fail in quotes because it didn't fail at least not as a quality game. Me, my brother and my dad used to play that game just about every day using LAN. We were pretty fond of the game and upon hearing the name we could separately recall very specific battles with detail it was a pretty important game especially to me and my brother growing up. So much so to this day if either of us are playing a RTS game and hear the guys say "hello" we think of: "Commandiment? I woll!"
On the topic of graphics I am impressed how well it still holds today. A lot of 3D games of the time look quite bad now a days or at the very least dated. If that came out today nobody would say "That looks old" apart from the hud of course. Glad to see you comment I first time I saw you was from the video you did with Lindybeige a few years ago.
Seeing units litteraly fly when you hit them with cannon was my favourite part when I was playing this game, 10/10
I loved the huge ships the most.
I rmb that AOE3 villagers dig it (taken place upon themselves) as well according to the official description.
Tbh it was done so much better on the battle for middle earth games. Watching orcs go flying as you charge cavs or people when they hit by trolls and spells.
Having a bombard hitting a group of infantry 😅 - amazing feeling
I bet you also loved the elephants in Rome Total War 1 ! :P
(because they were making the units fly as well)
:)
I personally liked the civilizations having the unit variety more specific. Getting a completely unique roster between France, Ottomans, Japanese or Russia adds more flavor to faction choice, and feels more historically authentic.
On top of that you know most of the times what those units do with looking at the model alone. There are exceptions like the culverin and oprichnik. Long range inf > short/ no range inf + ranged cav > melee cav > long range inf.
I will say this tho. Samurai Revolution is right: France is Hella OP. The Ottomans don't feel nearly as OP as France despite the fact that they're one of the strongest nations in the game (with good historical basis). I've played several matches against French AI as Netherlands (Personal fave) and sometimes even guard halberdiers will struggle vs Cuirassiers. And same goes for Ruyters. But at least the Netherlands have some of the best endgame siege capabilities in the game thanks to the coehorn mortars card. That being said, getting only 30 musketeers does feel a bit annoying since skirms are shit vs cav which is bad when playing vs France, Germany, Russia and India
@@KravenTheKnight The French Cuirassiers/ Gendarmes are easy to beat with the Dutch Ruyter, Spanish combo of Dragoon and Espada with 10 missionaries behind them, all musket type units and aoe melee units. I feel like Ottomans are indeed too weak. Their eco is slow and their military is expensive. Mortars are often not really worth it. Other horse arty will do the job most of the times and they can be used against units as well.
When you play as the Netherlands you actually don't even need a barrack. Just train Ruyter and horse arty. The amount of each depends on what your opponent makes.
@@Vincrand well, against Aztecs, Japanese and Russians you definitely want skirms. And the Dutch skirms are pretty good because of the infantry combat cards. Plus they decimate Spanish rodeleros and pikes like nobody's business. That being said, I'll definitely take into account your advice and try to use more Ruyters and horse arty
@@Vincrand Yeah, I felt the counter system was fairly easy to understand, especially in terms of the time period. Light infantry counter heavy infantry because of their combat tactics and method of deployment but this can't be easily simulated in an Age game so you rely on damage modifiers to simulate combat advantages.
Man, AOE3 was a massive part of my childhood....good times.
Also, the OST AOE3 was fricking fantastic.
Reading my mind dude!
Me to bro, loved that game.
Truth! the OST gives me chills.
@@wolfparkour what's OST?
@@shiaeliminator6484 the game's original soundtrack
What's wrong with Dutch villagers costing gold instead of food? I'm Dutch and I've been eating gold for years now :p
Greetings from a wood consumer
@@darthchocolatius3421 I imagine you're planting mango trees to eat the trees instead of the fruit
@@Marine_Dynamite not everyone can afford mango grooves shipped from our homeland
So we try some magic spells these days like
Censored
Lumberjack
Woodstock
Lol
How does it taste?
One big reason is also timing. AoE2 was released in the golden age of RTS, alongside AoE1, Warcrafts, Starcraft, Red Alerts, C&C etc. AoE3 was released in the era of Call of Duty, Battlefield, World of Warcraft and other "more straightforward" games. So naturally AoE2 got a bigger player base and that granted it a classic status, one which has grown old very well.
That's a good comment. I remember when I got AOE2 it was the same Christmas I got Starcraft: Brood War.
Yeah the RTS genre was fcked up by MMORPG, and MOBA later.
This is important context, 100%. Sales/players is always dependant on a number of factors like genre popularity at the time, competition, series fatigue marketing budget etc. Amazing how many games are ignored at launch and then later lauded as hidden gems
Yes exactly the golden era of RTS. Around CoD is the rise of FPS to mainstream and yes its much easier to learn and play than RTS from a kid pov
AoM is closer to AoE 2 than AoE 3 is to AoE 2 gameplay wise. AoE 3 is a great game on its own, but feels alien to fans of the franchise.
I loved AoE 1 a lot due to its stone age Man vs nature setting, like you really feel like you accomplish something when you advance from the stone age. The primitive buildings, researching new techs, unlocking new units - It really feels like you've evolved from cave man to Paladin...
AoE 2 fixes a lot of issues and gameplay problems like depletion of resources, better defenses, more counters and better graphics, but moved to a more settlement era. Its focus is a lot more on fighting than advancing compared to AoE 1, but still nothing too excessive.
AoM Felt like the true AoE 3 for me, its kept a very similar composition and has similar progression strategies. The pace is pretty similar as well. The added graphics, god powers and myth units are just a cherry on top.
AoE 3 felt like a completely different game though. You no longer start out lost on some continent needing to invent the wheel or discover fire, heck you don't even have to go about looking for resources, Farms and Plantations are infinite. Almost everyone has guns with 100% accuracy, forests don't block infantry(it no longer feels cozy) and buildings are only needed for unlocking units or upgrades. Its got its perks though, the amazing graphics, Home cities, naval warfare, unique abilities for some units, trade routes, tribes, treasures, etc.
Like CnC4, they changed its formula too much from the original game, that old players found too awkward to get used too and new players didn't care too much for.
I remember the biggest flaw during release of aoe3 was the performance. The game was years ahead in graphics and most computers could not run it.
My mums computer was struggling with dial-up internet. @@dominicbrunet3439
i was lucky enough to have a pc that could run it at max settings. it was a visual showcase for pc.
Mainly the explosions and naval. A later patch fixed up that performance, so the game ran fine minus the building damage.
When it came out, it was probably the most beautiful rts game I've ever seen. I remember my jaw dropped when I saw those gigantic (relatively) and detailed ships in the water next to a beautiful new world coastline.
I really like the broadside cannons volley of a ship. Parts of enemy ship or building flying apart is really satisfying.
sadly is one of the few really good stuff in aoe3
Having Siege elephants and towncenter/castle on seashore made water maps for me very easy in Indian civ. I could throw any civ with siege elephants with actullay had cannons.
Naval combat in aoe3 looked so good.
@@prathameshjoshi007 I'd love a day-night cycle... Make native water transports and boats be able to silently slip onto shore elsewhere, but it takes a bit of time.
The maps could be made with 'harbours' in mind, where you have to/can hide things. Europeans have good vision during the day, but at night cheaper fleets can take on unprepared European fleets. I think of many of Thomas Cochrane when conceptualising this, as he did these manoeuvres both in Europe and as part of the fledgling Peru & Chili & even Brazil.
@@viniciusschadeck4992 nah the game was fun. People who like aoe2 are too biased. I honestly didn't like aoe2 at the time, and didn't play it much. So coming from AOE1 to 3, i enjoyed it a lot, though i still preferred the first one.
Nice to see someone shining some positive light on AoE3! It's personally my favourite in the series and I think it's criminally underrated.
love your challenge run man!
It’s because the grind for home city cards soured initial multiplayer reactions to the game. You basically have to play at a disadvantage for a long time.
DivineFaithborn or you can put cheats to get XP in skirmishes and then get a lot or levels. But it’s still not a great solution, it’s a good one tho, that’s what I did to get to lvl 50 in just 20-30 minutes maybe I don’t recall exactly how much time it was
@@Pac0110 This solution doesn't really matter because it wasn't around for the first ~8 years of the game. By the time the XP cheat was a thing, people had already made up their mind about the game.
Exactly and the fact it hasn't had the same new expansion treatment that 2 got over the last decade would also not have helped there at all. That alone has helped age 2 grow much larger while 3 was left in a pretty rough state
Unfortunately the time period does cause issues with many of the complaints due to counters making more sense if you follow more colonial era games.
One thing that is definitely *not* wrong with AoE3: Its soundtrack.
I've noticed that entertainment that start to go downhill seem to keep consitantly good soundtracks: Age of Empires, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, and LotR/Hobbit all had disappointing latter episodes/games/movies but the soundtracks stayed brilliant.
disagree, i enjoy it's gameplay since it's more relaxing than AoE2, where you have to constantly manage your army and economy in a tense environment where you can also run out of gold, rock or lumber easily as you get attacked every second and need buildings to advance to next age and tons of resources, you get no chance to win if your opponent reaches a higher age and attacks you, mechanics are hard as hell, the AI is almost impossible to beat in harder difficulties and most of players are just Rush abusive tryhards making the online play unpleasant, "gitgud" doesn't help either when most of pro people invade newbie matches... AoE3 has cool animations when moving, attacking, making a new formation or dying, there isn't something as overpowered as a castle which can be protected easily as well, walls are definitely op as well, you can just spam them everywhere in a second as the others struggle to destroy them and it's usually used to exploit the AI in campaigns such as Saladin and win unfairly, towers also have a limit in AoE3 so you don't spam them either making an impossible defense and the variety of units is fair enough, not so different than AoE2, people keep saying that AoE3 has repetitive designs... WELL then i guess the skirmishers, militia line, pikemen line, knight line, light cavalry line, and actually all lines are different in AoE2 right lol, they are both just different games with different features and gameplay, comparing them is hardly fair, i like both games but saying that only the soundtrack is AoE3 is good is not fair at all
@@LegendKingY2j Very nice big long essay. Just, uh, one little problem. I didn't say that only the soundtrack was good.
I liked Age 1's and Age 2's music wayy more than Age 3's. Note: Age 3 as a game is my fav.
Underrated games tends to have epic soundtracks
You're not playing as an Empire in age of empires 3, you're playing as a colony of an existing Empire. Which is why you dont build up a massive empire/city like in 2.
I never thought about it, but it's a good reason for the scale of the game
That explains the Revolution mechanic
You don't even play an empire in age 2 either, you start with a *town center*. Playing a colony would actually make more sense to have 3-5 town centers and at most 3 forts/castles in a standard game. They could have easily reduced the "lore" of your actions without reducing the amount of buildings.
@@Tudsamfa you dont start as a colony but you can build up into something that feels like an empire. My AoE3 civ always felt like a colony no matter what.
@@Tudsamfa how do you think empires were made IRL?
Having a town centre, having people who can fight/explore and having ships (if your an island)
and having enough precious mines to trade with or buy better stuff with.
That is how empires are built. Colonies are built upon existing motherland incomes from other colonies.
Hence why GBE snowballed to 189 territories in just 20 years with Victoria. Better ships, better explorers, better navigation, better trained armies, better economy. = Bigger larger better empire.
Hero: “every moment I live …is agony.”
Me at 14: Me too buddy , me too
Hahahah yeah man
Underrated comment lol
Everyone in the 14 cannot properly play a RTS game without cheating.
Not let me begin about the current gen...
I think AO3 tried too hard to be WC3 especially in style. What I loved about AOE2 was the feeling of putting together a giant army, whereas AOE3 always felt like you were putting together skirmishes.
Also bigger focus on "cinematic story" and introducing fantasy elements. Really didn't like it.
During Colonial times skirmishes ruled the battlefield
Honestly age 2 seems more a WC3; one fight does not impact as much as in aoe3...
The age game that actually competed with WC3 was AoM
Imagine trying to be wc3 but having a shit ass unit battle ai. It feels so clunky to let all your units even attack or not wasting all shots on the same enemy unit.
Even games like cossacks did so much better with that and it came 5 years earlier.
The music in AoE3 is amazing also.
Hate it!
Especially, the revolution music.
Nahh aoe2 music is like 100x better
@@wasitahmidhossainwasi6832 You're aware of the meaning of the word 'also'?
@@rookiedetective569 I remember of how years back I always went revolution just to hear the music
SOTL: Here is a field gun, a culverin and a horsegun.
Me: There is a cannon, a cannon and another cannon.
Lol, when I first played aoe3 I got whatever I thought looked the coolest and strongest, which was the cannon
me: there's artillery that makes men fly, artillery i don't usually build because i always keep a strong cavalry and weird bastard artillery added in the asian dynasties that i haven't experienced with that much
@@davidpriymak7394 I would call the great bombard huge ass cannon and I would pick Ottomans just to use that XD
I don't follow. Which one is the "another cannon"?
There is a cannon, a cannon, a cannon and da biggest and da baddest cannon of them all! (Ottoman big bombard). Also there is yet another cannon that is free and is produced by your factory.
I must say that the iroquis light cannon is pretty much a blend of different guns with average bonuses, making it an easy choice to spam.
The only thing I disliked about AOE 3 is the limit on towers you can build. But all in all its a great game
idk, i guess i could have also done with higher house limit. though i do enjoy small cozy towns
I HATE the limit on outposts. Limits on buildings of any kind are weird, but having one for strictly defensive buildings is so dumb.
I hated it in age of mythology too, while I get limiting them for balance reasons but the houses don't make sense in aoe3 where you have a hard cap on population that you will probably hit before reaching your house cap anyway
Most nations can increase this limit with a card. All in all the game let you focus more in unit defence than tower defence.
@@jaredfullmer7043
AoE2 limits it with stone supply. No stone in AoE3, so the Devs wanted to avoid you filling the whole maps with the (arguably quite strong in Industrial Age) outposts.
It’s also worth noting that AoE3 has an absolutely beautiful soundtrack.
Yeah, I hope the new remaster music will be better than older ones.
Yeah, one of my problems with AoE2 is the soundtrack. The soundtrack to the demos was awesome but not so much the full game. AoE had a great soundtrack but of course was just midis. AoE3 was just amazing with the music.
Stephen Rippys other work is great too and he seems under appreciated.
@@Tareltonlives AOE2 soundtracks are bit boring for me
Muptop 😍
It would be interesting to have you do some sort of collaboration with Samurai Revolution who is arguably the biggest AOE3 player on UA-cam. He is sort of like your equivalent to the AOE3 community, making videos that look at mechanics and such.
U seem to know aoe3; Do u know what happened to Interjection? I enjoyed his vids but there are no new ones
@@bitcoinfandom I do not know, sorry.
@@bitcoinfandom I was a big follower or inter and he use to work at bar but then quit to join the group of both aoe2/3 casters but then that folded so I'm presuming he went back studying and is busy. However I could be wrong with this assumption but he may also be working on aoe3DE being such a big influence on the aoe3 community.
Samurai Revolution is closer to T90, though. But hey, he likes samurais!
Samurai rev it's not close to the level of analisis of Sotl, SR barely dominates the basics of the game.
Some of the material of Sotl applies to all RTS, while SR videos just cover some very specific strategies.
"Stares in iroquois cannon who makes extra damage to infantry, buildings AND artillery and ships"
Iroqious is racist now, they changed their name in DE.
Ironically, Iroquois siege is even easier to distinguish in AOE3 compared to their European counterparts. Indians are two elephant siege units and a ranged elephant that doubles as anti-cavalry/anti-siege.
@@martytu20 that also don't have an animation for limber/fire mode. As a matter of fact, most of Asian Dynasties sieges suffer from a lack of animation between limber/fire mode, which is crazy when you think about it.
Not a bad thing, since Asian artillery have no animation idle time between limber/fire mode (except for the mortars).
@@awellner3285 Yes they changed and no it isn't. Not the least because Iroquis isn't used to describe a race. It is used to describe an ethnical group.
I actually enjoyed age 3 more also because I really like the era.
Spain's prime was when both swords and guns were used. Best of both worlds, sort of. A conquistador with armour is way cooler than a Brit wearing a coat that is red. Yawn.
x2
Same, I love line infantry more than medieval swordsmen, which seem a bit too generic to me
@@koopanique yup and big boi cannons in the battle field are satisfying. Expecially ottomans great bombards
I really like using ninjas and cowboys
I have to admit that I ended up liking AOE3 more because I'm not a particular skilled AOE2 player. I've played AOE2 since its release but I just don't have the skill to do all the micro and stuff. AOE3 seems more suited for a casual player, specially if you play mostly on single player. Also, I'm a history buff and a geography teacher, and I just love the insane effort they made to give us a very diverse set of maps and scenarios in AOE3. I'm just a sucker for all those maps.
Same! I'm more of a causal gamer and historian.
Yeah aoe 3 seems more overwhelming at first but the learning curve is actually pretty small due to economy being so simple
I agree, love that it's not as dependent on microing every single ranged engagement to abuse archer mechanics
It's so much easier to do Fast fortress in AoE3 than do Fast castle in AoE2.
All you have to do is herd 2 hunt when aging up and send 700 coin after in AoE3.
But in AoE2 dark age micro is 5 times harder than doing all the things above, you need to micro for wood at some point, lure the boar at some point, my brain can't really handle that much.
We’re all waiting for Age of Mythology: Definitive Edition.
An idea for a fun conversation to have with friends - which are the games that deserve a remaster/remake?
Sad prostagma....
I'd argue Age of Mythology was always the age game that could benefit from a definitive edition the most. Aom 1 and 2 both have timeless sprites and Aom 3 uses less dated unit models. I love Aom's graphics and atmosphere to death, but I get the feeling its dated graphics turn new people off. The game even has a few cinematic units that show off how amazing the game could look if it was more detailed.
A lot of people out there who likes AoM about as much as AoE2 I think, it's just so much fun to play
If it's released, they better remove that idiotic Chinese expansion pack.
It´s sad to see that many people categorize AoE3 as the "black sheep" of microsoft RTS game... Even then they forgot about my beloved Age of Mythology ;_; .
All four of those titles are classics. But people do have their opinions regardless. Let them. We know why we love the SERIES as a whole.
Press F for Arkantos.
F
I go back to AE2. I never stopped playing AOM
I agree, AoE 3 is sadly considered the black sheep when Age of Mythology is so much worse.
The most successful thing of AOE3 is that their villagers dont switch to melee attack while facing enemy
But they do switch to melee ...
@@Afriendlyhippo No, they shoot. Though, their guns make little harm to soldiers. But that makes sense.
Yea... except for the fact that villager melee is stronger than their ranged, so if you want to kill anything with a villager you still need to use melee (manually)
@@potatoesandducks958 yes. Basically it was a "task failed sucessfully", melee shoudn't be stronger than ranged.
yeah the Hoardings research in AO2 was weird. Like why the fuck would I have a village attack a building lol
I think you missed out the fact AOE2 could run on most family computers so sold much better than AO3
A whole bunch of AoE 2 players started their AoE 2 gameplay as children playing on their father's plain non-gamer computer that could run AoE 2 no problem. It was a massive success because any computer could run it, from your dad's computer to a cheap computer that people in most nations can afford.
Meanwhile AoE 3 came out in an awkward time where most casual gamers (even in "rich" nations) didn't have fancy graphics cards (or any cards at all) so it was slow. Graphics requirements got rid of a big portion of people that bought AOE 2 (gamers in less developed nations, casual gamers, and "children-playing-on-dad's-computer" gamers).
When I was a kid I was a huge AoE 2 fan. When 3 came out I tried to run it on my family's computer and it literally exploded. I cried a lot that day.
I have the original box with me, so let's list the minimum system requirements for this 2005 game.
Windows: XP - 256 MB RAM
Processor: 1.4 GHz
Hard Drive: 2GB
Video Card: 64 MB with support for hardware transformation and lighting
Other: Sound card & speakers/headphones
Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56K dial-up internet access or LAN.
(I'm not a techie, so I'm not sure which things are the most draining for PC's at the time)
@@liamdell6319 "hardware transformation and lighting" There you have it. T&L wasn't standard for most GPUs back then. I remember having this issue with SW Battlefront. Met all the minimum requirements but wasn't able to play it due to my GPU not supporting T&L.
@@FFFFFFF-FFFFFFFUUUUCCCC did it now? Like, literally explode? Or are you just making justice to your namesake? : p
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Well what really happened was that the computer bricked and I smelled smoke. The computer had to be thrown out. Might as well rename myself as "Exaggerator"
It's weird. I really fell in love with and played a lot of AoE3, despite the fact I grew up playing AoE2. The civs in 2 feel a bit samey, after playing a lot of 3. Everyone has the same villagers, same men at arms, same militia and even the same Dark Age architectural style. When it comes to 3, I like the unit variety, and even the special merc units only accessible through cards or a saloon, or treasures. The game *feels* like there's a lot more interesting stuff going on, like there's more to discover down the road, but I can understand how the strategy and competitive element suffers for it. I always hated the population cap and how limited armies were in size compared to 2, as well. I was always coming up with ways to push past the unit cap.
As for the home city, it was nice watching it grow and change as I leveled up. I've always loved rpgs, so that element just clicked for me. The colonial setting, too, was a bit more interesting and fresh to me than medieval, at least when I got into it.
Worst part about Age of Empires III is the inability to zoom out far enough to where you feel like you can see enough of what's going on.
You can go into options and change that
Most games don't allow that. I've heard the reason for this is that during playtesting everyone zooms out a lot, and then complains how the game is slow-paced, units are barely distinguishable and controls are inconvenient (as the result of camera being too far from action). But as soon as the zoom out is limited, all those complaints are gone. In other words, devs prevent you from ruining your own experience.
@@DommHavai you mean, devs prevent me from purchasing a game
@@MysteryD I mean that they make the game better for the vast majority of players by not letting them ruin their own experience. It's a common practice in game development, not just about zoom out.
@@DommHavai Bro. My point is that you cant even zoom out far enough to easily select a 40-man unit. Fills the whole fucking screen.
SotL finally getting into AoE3 gameplay mechanics is like... your crush who you thought never noticed you suddenly sends you flowers
So many emotions, overwhelming
@@charleswest2314 oh, we will get there, some day. But now is the time for AoE3 to shine, with all its glorious 3d graphics, physics and home cities. Aztecs and Japanese #represent
@@charleswest2314 That's like 2nd base. You gotta start a bit slow, go to the movies, get some coffee.
same here man!
When I was kid I wished corpses disappear slower like AoE2. So it would feel that there was a fight
i hope they make bigger maps in AoE3de
like a whole observable universe.
Played MP test and sadly no
Whoops broke my NDA
Clearly, it would be the best. Especially for a **colonial** game where exploring and having limited manpower ressources to protect a larger area is essential.
I hope a few european maps are added.
AOM bruh!!! Always wanted to hear an aoe2 pro's thoughts on AoM
Yesssss! My most played game to date
Still sh*t game. Just kidding bro
Pro ? Lol
@@sciuresci1403 he literally makes money by playing AoE2 soo, he's not MLG but I'd say he's a professional AoE2 player.
agreed!
I really like age of empires 3 because of the unique way the civilizations played. Which allowed you to come up with pretty unique strategies. I do agree with the units stopping to attack was bad, as well as not being able to tell what kind of buff/nerf they have vs other units was tough.
In my opinion, the reason is mostly because AoE2 is way more similar to AoE1 but more balanced, whereas AoE3 feels like an entire different game.
Basically Homm series but for RTSes
it's the same reason why the new settler games are all pretty bad, at least imo, it's just not the same game.
In addition, AoE3 has had more balance issues than AoE2 over the years, and I believe particularly at release.
@@Lunethia Hey, Settlers 7 was made my AOE's lead dev! Bruce Shelby is I recall correctly. It was an amazing PC-tabletop game that would have done much better if it was released in and around the PC-tabletop boon. Alas, it has very little to do with the Settlers series.
Teiii ! You're here too?
I personally loved the time period of AoE3 more and hope they explore it further. The home cards, music, combat, ragdoll effect from cannon shots , the ability to gain map based bonuses based on native alliances that let you blend your troops not to mention the music etc. all just come together to make a fantastic game.
I think outside of a few minor issues or gripes the core issue was fan expectations and perhaps not liking range becoming the core focus(despite hand combat being in AoE3 a large chunk of units were/are based on range combat).
Regardless of what people think im actually glad the devs took risk with this game and pushed for a less attempted time period for a RTS.
I really hoped Age of Empires 4 will sort of unite time periods of both previous games, sadly its more of a Age of Empire 2 2, with sliight overlap with early period of Age of Empires 3. But i guess its resonable, by numbers of AoE 2 and AoE 3 fans. (Different thing that AoE 4 still defeated by same AoE 2, so they will just stick to making AoE 2 DLC)
I would argue that your channel also had a small, but considerable, effect in AoE2's popularity. I, for instance, was already a fan of AoM and AoE3, but never cared much about AoE2 until I discovered your channel. The sheer quality of your videos, and the passion put in them, made me reconsider my views on AoE2. I still prefer AoM and AoE3, but thanks to you I learned to appreciate AoE2's gameplay and community a lot more.
Honestly because I understand Aoe2 so much more, knowing all this hidden info I'll probly never use due to not having the mental speed for it quite yet, I'm more likely to enjoy it.
Though... Ain't my fave, tbh...
I'm all about Empire Earth instead. xD
That's true, AoE2 was always my fav game while AoE3 and AoM are just casuals for me, but the content that spirit makes with AoE2 is impressive not only within Age, but in general . I recently started playing LoL, supposedly the biggest videogame, and I was confused on how there wasn't a SOTL-like UA-camr.
I think if it weren't for SotL, T90, T-West, pro streamers like Viper, Hera and a few others, AoE2 wouldn't have the popularity it has today. I don't know of any AoE3 content creators with that kind of following. There are also a lot of following in other languages with pro streaming in other languages (Spanish and Chinese for example).
@@fabriziomariano1332 Because LoL is very transparent when it comes to mechanics unlike AOE2. There is no question unanswered when it comes to gameplay in this game.
Same here :) ... AoM + Titans were my favorite and the after i start following UA-camr like Solt and T90 i had to reconsider AoE2, which now i think is the best :D with the ultimate gameplay for this type of games. Arguably even better the Star Craft
One major thing overlooked! Aoe 3 at time of release needed a much better pc, graphics card to even run, while my original aoe2 ran off the mother board itself; people didn’t have resources they do now in this day and age 😁
That was a real dark age
I still run AoE 2 HD on my 2009 laptop.
Yeah I remember we couldn’t do naval battles because our computers would just crash.
You know, I’m wondering... what are your thoughts on Age of Mythology?
AoM is by the best of the series.
Aom is my favorite
apart from the very unique civs, i also like the fact that they are a second factor to counter units
Pop cap is too limiting.
@@jcpkill1175 yeah the 250 pop cap is kinda bung
As someone that is an avid Age of Mythology veteran, I can confirm that the reason the armies feel sluggish is mainly because the army will base it's speed on the slowest unit, for example an Egyptian war elephant.
It's not difficult to get used to, often times you'll want to select your fastest troops first to get them out, while letting your slower troops skirmish with the attacking army. If you want to save your slow troops, have them on a retreat path while you fend off the attackers with your fast troops. There's a lot that goes into it macro wise, especially if you're retreating your titan from the battlefield and you need some troops to cover for it.
isn't this true for aoe2, also?
@@Appletank8sort of, while there are slow units (archers, elephants) the slowdown is usually worsened by "traffic" while moving too many units in the same direction. You can insert fast troops to defend the slow ones but they'll actually worsen the "traffic"
@@CP-mb7ly The mechanic I was mainly thinking of was how from AoE2 onwards, a control group of units only moves as fast as the slowest unit.
it was only mildly annoying, coming from starcraft. i was already used to group units by type anyway
05:36 there's a moonwalking Teutonic Knight. :P
I hope this bug never gets fixed. :D
@@Robert-vk7je Not a bug, unexpected feature ;P
Moon walking on farm is showing something that aoe 3 will never have :P
I always preferred Age 3, and I started with Age 1 back in the late 90's. So Age 4 was a massive disappointment for me, because it just felt like 5 steps back, and none forward.
why? aoe4 looks like a modernized&improved aoe2
@@ertegi64366 That's why. He prefers Age 3.
I was expecting age 4 begin ww1
@@danielperezcardenas4074 I hope they do a 20th century age of empires
@@nathangoode1089 me too kid, me too
I really do hope you start making AOE3 videos in the future. There isnt many youtubers out there talking about this game, let alone of the quality of your videos. Its a new mindset that you have to have with AOE3. As you said there isnt much investing in what you build and its very fast paced. In deepth knowledge on what to use when and agains what makes the difference, thats why the civs are so different to one another. I believe the devs intended to have that focused, instead of the general knowledge that you need in AOE2.
yeah I really prefer he make a series to cover the mechanics of this game because Samurai Revolution as a youtuber is good and all but Spirit comes at these games with mathmatics in mind.
I wouldn't watch the videos. I think AOE3 looks so stupid, it's just not fun to watch.
Musketeer once said : Comondamen
yis
@@andreimoga7813 he wole
he men a saw
@@andreimoga7813 HE WISS
attackah
I'm waiting for Age of Mythology DE someday!
❤️
YES I want my historically accurate army of walking scarabs and crocodiles that shoot solar beams. While my hero shoots lightning at the enemy.
AoM is fine as is. Though I do enjoy AoK DE's crumbling buildings... mmm, so crunchy.
Someone clearly doesnt understand the meaning of the word “Mythology” lol
Gentlemen: I have news.
I have played Age nearly every day for 20 years. The "The emotional commitment" you mentioned to city building and defending your personal investment is why I'm still 1620 ELO...
Hahha I like to beat u
1620 Elo is huge if we talk about DE Elo
I like both aoe2 and aoe3, but one of the first things that became appartent when I started aoe 3 was the diplomacy. Age of empires 3 didn't let you change allies, have a neutral statues etc. I am guessing it is due to team cards.
you'll be pleased to know DE now includes this as an option, ON by default i believe, for Free for all matches, and it works identically to aoe2 system as well, a very positive inclusion
@@Mythic1560 Except that AI doesn't know how to use it , different from AOE2 randomly "set me to neutral" AI. I miss that.
I love the how you can customise your civ on AOE 3
Coming from Aoe3 to Aoe2 I found many of the same intuitive struggles, but in reverse. It still hurts my head to think that 10 unarmed villagers slapping a stone tower is actually the effective and preferred strategy to destroy it?!
10 workers with masonry experience and proper tools*
@@isawadelapradera6490 And still the knight beat the stone with a sword
😂😂😂😂😂
I love both games but i prefer aoe3 and the biggest reason is that in Aoe2 all civs looks EQUAL AF. In aos3 threaded units same to each other's yes but strategically talking aoe3 feels they have unique civs.
Really? You think someone bashing a wall with a sword or trying to pierce it with an arrow is more intuitive than someone burrowing the ground below it?
I have to say that I prefer AoE3 when it comes to civ design. They feel very different from each other in a way that AoE2's never did.
Just all the weird quirks some civs have when it comes to villagers makes them stand out a lot.
That’s why I enjoy it. Love the balance and stuff from aoe2 but the fact that every civ is very similar with their units, save for the unique unit, gets a bit boring after a while.
@@jacforse7642 I agree. Obviously there is a trade off in adding to the learning curve but I don't think the game would be remembered at all if it was a AoE2 reskin like the Star Wars RTS the uses the same engine.
While I agree with the assessment, I think that accessibility not the only cause of AOE3 lack of favor with people. There are two , in my opinion, big points that I think get AOE 3 down:
A) Age of empires 1 and 2 were a 90's franchise that could run on *any computer* made after 1996. Good pc, bad pc, windows 98, xp or 7, you could run it. Age of Empires 3 made all but the best computers of the era just *crawl*. Especially the naval battles which made your fps drop to single digits even after several patches, on lowest graphics, on a strong computer.
This limited the fan base to people with new computers that could run the new game, which not all age fans could afford, especially outside of America and Europe's middle class.
This alone was not enough, but with the after mentioned accessibility issues it could doom the game, and then we have problem B...
B) The game fucked up it's own setting. Age 1 focused on antiquity - The Hellenic-Roman, Mesopotamian, Levantine and Far eastern cultures all got campaigns, scenarios, or civs to play as, and it ended with an expansion focused on Rome and late antiquity - which where Age 2 begins, focusing on the rise from the dark age to the high middle ages, and ends with an expansion that looked mostly towards the end of the era - the discovery of the new world.
In short, massive variety of factions from all over the world, lots of historical campaigns, even if of dubious accuracy.
By comparison Age 3, while continuing the timeline, going from the discovery of the Americas to the industrial revolution, suffers from being too focused not only on colonialism, but *American* colonialism. The default building set for everyone is north American log cabins, the settlers are all vaguely American, the campaigns are an assassins creed 3 esque story fictional story about secret societies and the fountain of youth and just...why.
The 8 european factions, 3 native and 3 asians simply didn't hold a candle, no matter how unique, to the variety brought by age 2 (not counting HD) and it's 4 Western European, 4 Eastern European, 2 Mesoamerican, 4 Asian, and 4 Middle Eastern factions. that's 18 factions from across the world, with only 1 expansion.
Even for Europeans the setting was limited: No English Civil War, no German war of unification, no napoleon, no 30 years war, no 7 years war, no great northern war, no fighting against the ottoman, again the nonsense with Germany being a thing before the 1870's, etc.
TL;DR - It ran like shit when it came out, and the setting was done very poorly and focused too much on the US.
I remember having to buy a new graphics card to be able to play water maps on on AoE3 when it first came out, which was the first time I'd ever bought an individual component for a PC as I'd just played games on family PCs up to that point.
Your second point is exactly my thoughts. It is no joke that Age of Empires 1 is what started my love of history, and while AoE 1's history was tacked on at best, it still sparked my interest. AoE 2's campaigns were amazing to me as a kid, I played through them so many times, it was cool to learn about things across the globe. AoE 3 just dropped the ball tremendously, when I learned it was exclusively from a colonial perspective with a fantasy story about the fountain of youth I was immediately turned off from the game. That paired with it feeling like all the bad parts of Age of Mythology with none of the good parts just killed the game for me.
If you wanted a single player game in 2005 what you instead received was a game with a very strange campaign and random map AI that did not actively use its factions unique characteristics or units. WarChiefs and Asian Dynasties helped and give me hope for DE, but the original just did not offer much compared to the first two AoE games.
ConscriptDavid
Agreed, Also the controversy of those fictional stories in single player adds up but never mind Let's talk about what really ruined this game popularity !
To make things worse Microsoft firing the team behind this game 'Ensemble Studio' and leave absolutely no one in game managements and remove all customer support emails leaving AOE3 Community on their own facing tons of bugs, lot of unfinished work, and hackers..
While this game had it's own T_ime to shine but unfortunately it stopped and lost it's most loyal people..
Well you can add this the to that list of 'cause of AOE3 lack of favor'
Finally some sense. Didn't play 3 until I was an adult for this reason, and by that time I was too interested in competitive multiplayer for it to stand a chance against 2.
generally in aoe3, I feel like the devs were trying to mitigate unit micro where soldiers dodge arrows and whatnot and the mechanics really incentivize actually playing battles like real colonial era battles would go, with stationary line infantry, cavalry on the flanks, and canons in back (and melee infantry like pikes, rodelero, or natives in front as canon fodder lol)
First, and most importantly, the medieval brand is easier to sell, that's the most important thing. The medieval period has vikings and samurai and mongols and saracens and celts, the list goes on and on. The decidedly euro-centric initial offering of AoE3 made stuff *feel* very similar, even though they were very dynamically different under the hood.
Second, the faster pace was really, really punishing on new players, a problem which was magnified by really poor game balance at launch. Very quickly skilled players gravitated to the Spanish, then the Ottomans and just started crushing people with hyper-aggressive rush tactics. This created a monoculture in the online community which really hurt the sense off variety and fun of the experience. AoK is very, very turtle-friendly, and while that doesn't work at the highest levels of play, it will keep you in the game long enough to get attached to the game.
Third, the Home City XP grinding was a huge turn-off, basically locking people in even more into the flavor of the month metagame. If Ottoman were OP, you had to grind your Ottoman city, so you played a lot of Ottoman vs Ottoman vs Ottoman games so you could improve your Ottoman deck. Later releases helped a lot by fixing up balance and adding non-European civs, but by then it was kind of too late.
This should have more likes.
its easier to sell maybe back then. but by god that time period is so stale now. AOE3 was really fresh-maybe to fresh to ppl like those who are stuck in the dark ages. i dont mean to be rude but it feels fitting.
@@m00rtin4 I think you'll find yourself in the minority. I don't disagree with you, the medieval period is somewhat over-exposed, but AoE4 is re-visiting the period for a reason.
Aaron Long Remember when they teased it was going to be early 1900s warfare in their trailer like 10 years ago? I woulda said fuck that entirely
@@AaronMichaelLong Agreed, and the way games like Witcher 3, Skyrim, the Mount and Blade Series, and Kingdom Come blew up in popularity shows that the medieval/fantasy themes are pretty much timeless classics, and are certainly not going away anytime soon.
1:48 That Aztec on the piramid tumbling down the stairs
Not really uncommon nowadays
ua-cam.com/video/H9RORvsolp0/v-deo.html
They NEVER skip leg day
loool
You mean walking down?
I understand where your coming from with the idea that AOE3 counters are less intuitive based on the way they look, but I feel that the argument is undermined somewhat by the fact that AOE3 actually tells you what bonus damage units have, as opposed to AOE2 where you are just given a description in the tech tree that says "Cataphract: Byzantine unique unit. Heavily armored cavalry," it's almost like there is a reason why UA-cam channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers exist just to try and explain what AOE2's mechanics actually are.
Bingo!
also the fact if you know anything about history the name is very intuitive. For example the skirmishers vs musketeers example. Musketeers were design to provide a mass of bullets down range and deal as much damage as possible before charging in with bayonets. The vast of majority of battles ended not because one side got shot to death but instead broke formation and fled due to a successful bayonet charge. Skirmishers on the other hand did not fight in line formations but instead spread out and out in front of the enemies and were intended to prod and eliminate enemies with more accurate fire. The same with cannons. When they actually entered the battlefield (not just as a siege weapon) they were designed to soften and break up enemy formations. As a result anti cannons became necessary which is where the culverin comes in. The culverin had a much longer barrel giving it unparalleled accuracy and velocity (increasing effective rang) and as we see on the game model has the capability of aiming far higher then any other cannons (that's what that brown this at the back of the barrel was for) allowing it to shoot far farther than the other cannons which were either locked into a horizonal fire or had a limited capability to aim up. This allowed it to hit the cannons in the backline of the enemies.
@@a-drewg1716 That's a lot of history about weapons and war in the colonial age for the average player to know for it to be intuitive, so for most players it's not.
@@a-drewg1716 that isn't intuitive at all lol
most schools don't even touch on subject of what military was used in aoe3 period except "slow reloading rifles" and like half of units in aoe3 are just that
The faction difference is the thing that makes me prefer AoE 3 than 2
Something that I love soo much about 3 is the little details. Like... They had unique voice lines for specific units, not just civs.
The Swiss pikemen speak a different german than actual german units, with a specific voice. Same with lansquenetes.
The Hakapell, the Elmeti, etc. All had unique voices and dialogues.
It actually made them feel like real mercenaries, you can tell they're clearly from somewhere else, not from your empire.
I also find it funny that, the heavier a unit is, the deeper the voice.
Heavy cannons use really deep voices, while light infantry use more high pitched voices. It's funny but... It kinda makes sense? Like, just by the voices you can tell what kind of unit it is.
There are tons of details in AOE3, and like you said about languages, this is the first game that I heard Albanian language in any game (Stradiots talk albanian), they made their research . Also pretty much every unique upgrade have unique name with good correlation in real life event which makes this even more impressive.
I love how age 3 emphasis on history too. I play mostly as Ottoman. Ottoman is known as gun powder empire with strong cavs. But they were the sick man of Europe. So otto eco 🤢. Or how they depicted GREAT bombard fearsome but ineffective. But you take it lightly. I loved how they depicted Russia or India too.
I remember the mortars had comically deep voices lol
One of the details is you get to know each unit by it's profile with time. For example let's use the musket/skirmisher comparison
Heavy infantry comes in 2 flavors. Melee and ranged. Melee HI is simple to identify, if you see a guy running with fancy armor, melee infantry. If you see a guy with a gun, fancy hat and bayonet and a backpack, it's HI. Another thing is musketeer units always keep their guns in the shoulder.
Compare that to Light infantry. Usually they hold their weapon with both hands instead of the shoulder. Also they are overall less chunkier. No hat, no big sword/bayonet, no backpack.
You can also tell by the multipliers. If you see a lot of multipliers in the top and few in the bottom, it's light infantry. If it has very few multipliers on top but a lot in bottom, heavy infantry.
0:28 I remember playing AoE 3 when it first came out on disk before steam. It often peaked well over 10k sometimes 20k
It also had millions of sales and it was not a commercial failure and it was not responsible for Ensemble Studios going bankrupt as many people say. (This was for external causes as I understand it). Although it is not the most played, it has an active and stable community.
I really like the 'feel' and immersion of AoE III, I get really pulled into the game and I end up feeling somewhat connected to the time period as a result. Having said that I would *hate* to play it competitively. All of the quirks and oddities make for a great single player experience- I like that my units get into specific formations, I like that it lets me feel like I am having proper pitched battles and I like that skirmishes for resources are common early on, but tend not to devolve into all out war until later, but all of these things are basically only possible in single player, and they happen because I feel the game is 'inviting me' to do them.
Oh and as an asside, I think I actually like the time period more than AoE II, it feels less nostalgic but more 'gritty' and has more of an 'action' feel to it as though I'm playing a dangerous game of decision making, whereas AoE II feels more "grand strategy" like I'm off in the distance deciding thing. That's a very personal preference though, and it's some of the mechanics that hold it back from being quite as 'legendary' as AoE II
I only play multiplayer and I get into skirmishes over early resources (with larger battles happening later), depends how you play. As for unit formation and all the criticism of it being slow by the video, I like the formations and if you play enough you get good at maneuvering your inf, calv, and arty almost in the intended way as they would have during the historical era of line battles
Honestly I love them both. The Holy Trinity: AoE2, AoE3, and AoM! (Never forget AoM)
@arega stevano Age of Mythology
Age of Mythology has a good mix of both.
What you mentioned about counters is actually pretty important. I would say it gets even worse though in Empire Earth, where not only is there a complicated triangle of "Shock", "Pierce" and "Arrow" units (and oftentimes it's difficult to determine which unit is either of those) but when you get into ages dominated by gunpowder, tanks or most unintuitive of all, _mechs,_ you'll basically have no idea what the counters are. The worst part is that the game contains no in-game instructions, so someone who had the game back in the day would have to refer to their manual frequently.
That being said, Empire Earth is still a pretty epic game... maybe you should --please do a video about it sometime--
EE1 (very complex) and EE2 (very very complex) are close to my heart. (EE1's soundtrack is rank 1 for me.) Of course, they were never near to Age 2 in popularity because ultimately the single player campaigns end, the skirmishes/random-maps against AI become boring, and people need Multiplayer. EE1 and EE2 are way more complicated (consequently, slow) for multiplayer.
Algunas razones que yo veo:
1) Para la fecha en que se lanzó AoE3, el género rts venía perdiendo fuerza.
2) La curva de aprendizaje es mucho más lenta que con AoE2, cada civi es distinta, cada carta es distinta y el orden en que las uses genera miles de alternativas de juego posibles. Dominar el juego requiere demasiadas horas de aprendizaje y jugarlo es más complejo que jugar al 2. (Aunque una vez que aprendes todas esas dinámicas, puede ser mucho más entretenido y es mucho más difícil caer en la monotonía).
3) Los gráficos no corrían en muchos de los computadores de la época. A mí recién ahora me corre el juego, de niño cuando se lanzó no me corría ni el demo.
4) La edad media es más popular que la edad moderna en el imaginario colectivo.
5) La campaña es entretenida pero no está a la altura de las de AoE2, principalmente porque no refleja hechos históricos (se farrearon una gran oportunidad teniendo las civis que tenían). Ahora en DE han sacado algunas "batallas históricas" y son geniales.
Pero creo que las razones 2 y 3 son las principales de por qué la comunidad nunca se pasó del todo al AoE3. Por mi parte, me encanta toda la saga, incluido AoE1 y AoM (y Galactic Battlegrounds)
Holandeses y plantas los 6 bancos para oro infinito, 10 colonos en cada recurso y cuando las minas de oro y plata se acaben mandas a los colonos libres a los otros recursos, dos colonos para construcción 4 edificios de artillería y haces 50 cañones de campaña, y luego avanzas lento y contento contra el enemigo jajaja
@@kevinquintana3085es super fácil counterear a los holandeses, todo eso aunque parezca una "ventaja" en verdad no lo es, los bancos con todas las cartas y mejoras que le puedas agregar al fin de cuentas cuentan como 30 - 40 aldeanos que son justo la cantidad de aldeanos que les hace falta. El resto de civilizaciones tienen un límite de 100 aldeanos mientras que los holandeses tienen 60.
As a huge history buff, I don't feel that either of the examples you made about AoE3's units not being obvious to figure out were difficult to figure out, but that, in itself, illustrates your point about the time period and game being less accessible. You don't have to know anything about history to know that a shield can stop an arrow, but knowing the nuances between light and heavy Napoleonic infantry requires an above-average knowledge not just of history, but of that period's military history.
And that's why I like it :) IT gets you to learn about an overlooked period of history; people go Egyptians-Greek-Romans-Castles-Tanks without thinking of all that cool history in-between.
To be frank, I really didn't understand that criticism. Like, just click on the unit and you can see it does X2 against heavy infantry. In AOE2, how am I supposed to know a cataphract is anti-anti-cavalry cavalry? AOE3 pikes will tell you they do 8X5 against cav. In AOE2, I think halbs do +32? Can't remember, cause there's nothing to tell you. In AOE3, if you don't know the puspose of your units, you're just not looking.
@@jeremyjean13 Or how literally every infantry unit deals extra damage to the Eagle line, for no non-balance related reason whatsoever.
a shield can also stop a sword. mangonels and onagers were rarely used against infantry. pikes were heavy defensive units against cavarly and infantry. men-at-arms were heavy cavarly. etc
I LOVED Age of Mythology with its radically different factions. however, I found it really hard to get into AOE3 for some reason.
I agree, for these reasons:
1) Despite the civilizations being different, they are not really distinct enough from each other in the fact the units variety is so similar, they all are just different skinned versions of guys with muskets or guys on horses compared to something like Starcraft or AoM where the units are very distinct.
2) There are so many civilizations that having unique civs becomes a drawback having to learn them all, again compared to Starcraft or AoM where they are significantly different from each other, but there's only 3 or so to learn.
@@L3monsta there are actually a variety of unit designs such as the Cassador, Strelet, Ruyter, Cossacks, Oprichnik, longbowmen, rodeleros, doppelsoldners, Uhlans, Abus Guns, spanish pikemen, spahi, all the elephants, cuisassiers, steppe riders and actually all the chinese, japanese, indians and native american tribes that have different units lol, not even mentioning the mercenary units... the game wasn't supposed to be the same as AoE2, AoE1 wasn't the same as AoE2 either so of course you need to relearn about the units and features
Same. The muskets and whatnot just never really connected with me as much as just running up and hitting each other with swords and axes. And I like the pacing and variety AOM brings more than I do the uniformity and minor variations AOE2. But apparently hardly anyone else really likes AOM. I don't get it.
@@LegendKingY2j "AoE1 wasn't the same as AoE2 either" AoE2 took the AoE1 formula and enhanced it. AoE3 dropped the AoE1&2 formula to try something else. so your point is kinda moot.
AoM was great, it's main drawback was the most of the minor Gods and many of the major Gods were sorely imbalanced, competitively some choices were just *bad*, like Odin, Gaia, Set (after it was nerfed into the ground) or Atlanteans in general.
One of the ways to micro in AOE3 is splitting snared units away from the rest of the group. This eliminates the slow of the group at the cost of that unit (usually).
Personally I love aoe2 but aoe3 I think is way more fun I love the single player spent many hours playing was very fun.
The number ONE detriment to age 3, which kept me from playing it alot more (or even finishing it) are the fantasy-esque non-historical campaigns, they're not BAD, but a big appeal for me on Age of Empires games is the history..
that said, if im not misremembering, infantry comes out of barracks in batchs of up to 5 units at once, which i found AWESOME.
Yeah only the Japanese and Indian Campaigns in AoE 3 were good which is very sad as they could have followed the Napoleonic Wars
Interesting. History has always been my passion (Even got a History degree) but I never minded the non-historical Age 3 campaigns. I absolutely loved Age 2 for its historical campaigns, AOM for its take on Mythology and Age 3 for how it used historical myths to tell a fantasy story.
What I didn't like was how the Asian campaigns tried to move back in the direction of Age 2 by being based on historical events (fictional for the Chinese) while also trying to make them dramatic in nature. The drama worked in the original campaign because you were following one family throughout the ages, in AD it falls flat because between setting the stage and introducing the characters you have little time to care about anything or anyone. And te missions are boring, which didn't help.
Khan Khomrad The Chinese just want you to think they didn’t invade Aztec lands for their gold.
bruh the aok and aoc aoe2 campaigns were only loosely based in real history and are filled with myths and straight up falsehoods.
I do agree-that weakest part of AoE3 vanilla is the campaigns. They're a lot better in the expansions
I think a factor that might seem discouraging at first glance is that, in addition to the grinding, is that the learning curve is much more steep due to the Deck Building Mechanic , that while amazing, requires a lot testing: The advantage is that you optimize and experiment with different game styles that better suit you, designing counters and accounting to situational advantages, but landing in that sweet spot is quite difficult and time consuming.
oh i have been waiting for a video like this for so long. The snare effect is always driving me crazy, not only when i'm taking extra hits, but also when i'm raiding and enemy villagers can't run and i kill them all without a sweat.
AND NO HILL BONUS
Snare effect can be managed by sacrificibg the unit that gets snared first.
@@sohamdas7314 i know, and i do it all the time, but it's horrible and completely avoidable. Just get rid of it.
The economy struggle in aoe2 made your troops more valuable.
Empire Earth and Rise of Nations need definitive editions released! Empire Earth was the bomb, especially their scenario editor.
I agree. Empire Earth was the best!
It is a shame that all civilizations were so alike
It's funny my favorite game from these popular franchises are always the most unpopular ones.
Empire earth 3
Rise of nations Rise of legends
Age of empires 3
Good to see this game get some love. Personally however, the building limits were the thing that put me off most. It just feels so forced to not be able to build another tower, even though you have the resources.
At least we can edit the xml files of the game and change the limit.
If you can just spam towers, there is no point in defending your walls with all your army, just make an insane lot of towers and a litlle army of culverins and cannons and that's it, boring as hell. With a card u have 14 tower limit, that's enough to help a lot but not decide the whole match.
Well tbh, before I learned counters, I would've thought that a skirmisher throwing a goddamn javelin with perfect accuracy should be a counter to literally any armored unit, but this is not the case.
Javelins don’t have a high armor piercing value because you are basically throwing something by hand
It makes sense that something like that wouldn’t pierce armor
But would inflict high damage against lowly armored targets
I grew with AoE2 as a kid, played it since 6yo until 18 more or less. Has a high sentimental value, but nowadays with little time and a hunger for variety, I just play an AoE3 mod called Wars of Liberty (40+ nations) that expands the saga's era from 1500 to 1800 so is a perfect AoE3. The issue is that AoE3 games are very short and really fast, so are perfect for me. I think the gameplay gets faster with each game of the serie, even raiding has a bigger impact, and analyzing your enemy's cards is vital for strategy. You have to adapt to the possible strategy. Another thing that draws me to WoL from AoE2 is that it has more features (spies, immigrants, export, and a well done counter unit game). I still play AoE2 when I have time or nostalgia, specially with the campaigns (campaigns the big weakness of AoE3), but if I want an intense 20min game, is just WoL (aoe3wol.com) all the way.
Aoe 2 is way faster while playing, you haven't played the ranked pool yet, so it feels slow to you, when you will play aoe2 you will see that the game has much more to manage than aoe3 both in macro and micro.
How did I never find this damn mod? That is insane...
@@jaygaglani9377 all games seems fast when you are playing them, so I can agree. But you are understanding the amount of care you need to take while playing AoE3, because having more automated things doesn't mean you are leaving them alone. You will always be changing 1 or 2 villagers from resource, looking and securing positions for next gathering, raiding, preparing and rushing. If you plan to go fast to age 3, perhaps you'll die. Scouting for gold, hunt, and key treasures is vital, because treasures can give you an edge over your enemy. Micromanaging units still makes a difference in battles, surrounding from the back to pass artillery through your blade. AoE3 matches are way more open, you don't see walls, is mostly a waste of wood, so you don't have that little relax of being safe behind a wall. Your base will be open, and protection is more active than passive (no walls, and almost never towers). So, yes, all games feel fast when playing them, but in AoE3 action comes to you way sooner faster and harder, and doesn't mean you don't have to micro and macro manage, on the contrary, you have tons of things to do. AoE2 and AoE3 are completely different in style and pace.
Massing like 40 artillery pieces in a death stack that blows up anything and everything is still one of my favorite parts of the game
I'm assuming that only works on SP.
Another issue is efficacy. In 3 you do not see the villagers bringing wood or coin or food to the town center. You know distance from the town center effects your speed of production but how much?
In 2 for very little wood you can build a supply and place it right near the source.
In short I wish 3 would have also had supply depots or granaries that you can put near the resources.
I played all the AOE/AOM games when they came out. Way back when, I liked AOE3 much more because of the better controls, QoL features, and clearer unit bonuses. I'm not sure, even in retrospect, how having to do less economic micromanaging affected my opinion. I'd suspect that not having to focus as much on economy was a bonus for me since my main goal was building up a town and conquering the enemy.
These days, with expanded knowledge of the AOE2, I feel like the better balance and economic focus would better appeal to me if I had the time to get into it. While I'm excited for AOE3 DE, I really can't wait for AOE4 as it's supposed to have less but more varied civs (getting back into AOE2 is tough with all the adulting I do as there are so many civs that it's overwhelming).
AoE2 makes it simply by having mostly similar units/buildings per civs, balancing them out and giving each of them a handful unique units or features. Never felt overwhelming to me at all.
I enjoyed both games but my personal favorite is AO3. Plus I watched alot of films that were set in that time so I may be biased.
Initially I couldn't transfer to AOE3 easily as well, but after I really got into it, I couldn't stop. I've become really good in civilizations and metropolies, so I've come to love it. Now it feels natural the same AOE1 and 2 are.
Well, with age iii, I liked the fact that they gave Spain crossbows. I was completely baffled in the Montezuma campaign when I saw the Spanish having archers and the Aztecs had crossbows. I thought: “Hold up. Shouldn’t that be the other way around?” I get that it was a gameplay issue, but still. I saw that the Incas in the Definitive Edition for Age III also don’t have any corral. Historically the Incas did adopt cavalry during their wars against the Spanish. I’m still glad they at least get represented as well.
On the note that you mentioned about factions being wildly different, I have a game that I think might interest you that takes the Age 3 approach. It’s called War Selection. To put it short, you get a choice when aging up between how your faction specializes. So in the Stone Age you can pick between europe and Asia, and once again past that for each tree with it. West Europe vs East Europe and West Asia vs East Asia. And it goes even more when you get to choose a real country in the Industrial Age. So over the course of a single match you are watching your civilization get more and more exciting units and buildings along with your enemy, and it makes the game feel very immersive, reaching its final stage as every Industrial country playing wildly different from any other.
Sounds like AoM.
The whole "being invested in your city concept" is way more apparent in aoe2 compared to 3
I think another significant reason is that there is no concept of "trash unit" in aoe3. The wood scarcity in aoe3 does not really matter when food and gold units perform better anyways.
Also, the settlers and town center were much weaker in aoe3 compared to the villagers and town center in aoe2. The lack of defense in aoe3 made it all about rushing. You could just take out their whole town no matter how many settlers hid in the town center.
In fact, the outposts, forts, and priests barely mattered in aoe3 while the towers, castles, and monks mattered a lot in aoe2.
The low population cap (due to higher per-unit population) combined with instant unit spawns in aoe3 was weird too.
Things I like about AoE3:
Better customization in both deck and home city
I actually feel like the civilization I am playing
Strategies used in 1700s warfare actually work and can be counter by guerilla warfare
More distinctive units and buildings
Campaign was so diverse making it a good Odyssey and even tho it was crazy it could be easily explained
Good game modes
Maps are immersive, you can drain their resources, capture wild animals, rescue natives or settlers from bandits or dangerous animals, building trading posts to establish a native relationship or start your own locomotive industry
Infinite resources that will help on players that play for longer times
Even if your entire city dies you can use some settles to create refugees to try to reconstruct it with shipments
(In AI battles) the other Civs react at your actions according if they are enemies or allies.
They whole damage and class system can easily be viewed in the unit's picture or description
You can play a civ in many different ways and still do great
Things I don't like about AoE3:
AI can easily softlock whenever they feel they lost, even if you give them thousands of resources they wont revive their colony
The Civs are not that well balanced
Multiplayer is really hard to join and hard to be part of the community if you are low level
Some build limits are not that much reasonable like 7 outposts, 10 would be a better number
The buildings can get lost in the ambience
The DLC campaigns are shorter IMO
I've spent a lot of time playing both. 3 being my favourite. I like a lot how they are different, because you can still switch between these game to play different matches. I really love that there is so much difference between the civilisations in aoe3. I really loved the expansions that added 6 wholly unique civs.
To be honest Age III civs being so different is my favourite aspect of the game when compared to Age II.
ikr? My emotional investment comes from the civ I main and I view every match as an extension thereof
As someone who loves rts games, I think Starcrafts success in Esports kinda poisioned what everyone though was important. The vast majority of people who play rts games do not play mutliplayer they play campaigns AND custom modes. That was the key to Warcraft III's success, not it's relatively forgotten multiplayer.
3:29 I think you underestimate how completely non counter intuitive the counter system works in aoe2, with all it's hidden bonuses. There are MANY. It's a big learning curve. Try to explain it to people that don't know the game and you realize how hard it is to figure out. I think AOE3 is actually easier because the counter system are in broad categories and not weirdly specific as in AOE2. Like scouts doing bonus damage just against monks, or militia line having bonus against eagles.
Spears -> cavalry
Cavalry -> archers/infantry
Archers -> infantry
Infantry -> Spears
Skirmishers -> Archers
Monk -> Cavalry
Light cavalry -> Monk
Siege -> Building
UU are generally strong units.
That's it, really. You don't need to know more than this when you start playing and most of this is common knowledge born out of how the various medias tell us that medieval battles go. Both in movies and games you see archers raining down on infantry, spears killing cavalry, cavalry charges being brutal.
Now, let's go over the Napoleonic period. We have:
Cavalry -> Siege
Skirmishers -> other infantry
Pikes -> cavalry
Siege -> All
But, what about the native civs? Their entire roosters are unique. Same for the Asians. Why do Samurai obliterate everything? Why do Japanese have better musketeers than Europeans? What do all Chinese units do? What about all the unique European units???
@@khankhomrad8855 You can say that in broad categories but there are so many exceptions to the rule that it makes it hard, especially then there is no information on the unit card. Like Skirms counters archers only. In Rome total war, javelins counters cavalry and elephants and they are countered by archers due to their shorter range. In aoe2 javelins does one damage to elephants and does no extra damage against cavalry. we can make lot of exceptions to any category you listed. I like it though as it makes battle more complicated and dynamic, but it can be very frustrating for newer players.
I do agree on the native civs you listed though, it's also non intuitive, but it's easy to read though
@@khankhomrad8855
In aoe3, as far as I remember is:
Light Infantry -> Heavy Infantry and Light Cavalry
Heavy Infantry -> Buildings and Heavy Cavalry
Light Cavalry -> Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry -> Light Infantry and Cannons
Cannons -> Buildings and Infantry
Heavy units have good Melee Combat.
Light units are focused on countering and are only good on Ranged Combat.
Cannons are powerful but very fragile to Melee.
@@teo.reinehr You are correct and that illuminates the issue. The counter system of Age 3 isn't that complex but you need to understand the individual units and most of them you can't guess what they do just by looking at them. Age 2 is pretty much the opposite; the counter system has a lot of exceptions (courtesy of UU's) and you can (mostly) guess what are the unit's roles just by looking at them.
@@khankhomrad8855 It's really easy, though in Age 3
Heavy infantry -> general purpose
Light infantry -> Heavy infantry + Hand infantry
Hand infantry -> Cavalry
Cavalry -> Artillery + light infantry
Ranged cavalry -> Cavalry
Artillery -> infantry + buildings.
That's it. The ashigaru, the euro musketeer and the tomahawk are all heavy ranged infantry, so you know how to counter them. Strelets, skirmishers, crossbows; those are all light infantry. The difference is that instead of saying "pikes", you have to think "hand infantry". There are, of course, exceptions, but there are many of those, too in AOE2.
Edit: sorry, didn't sealise someone already drew the chart
Another point: in age 2 it is also pretty intuitive which civ has an advantage in different aspects of the game.
i really like age 3 over 2 due the battles, my age 2 online experience boils down to everyone making skirms and pikemen for 30 minutes
My favorite is still Age of Mythology, I hope, there will be a remasterd version too.
You missed one: single player campaign
Aoe 2 was historical and aoe 3 is fantasy
This is the main reason I can never get into age3. Whenever I reinstall an age game I always go do the campaigns first, but the age 3 campaign is just... yuck. Annoying voiceacting, uninteresting story and no cool historical conflicts. For a fantasy story, AoM, or something else completely like WC3, do much better by far.
actually there is a lot of fantasy in age2 too, but i guess it's not as obvious to see it
I think Age of Empires 3 was just a different game to what AoE 2 fans expected. Doesn't mean it's bad at all, and my first experience of AoE was AoE 3 and a lot of the "shortcomings" of that game were all things that came completely naturally to me.
It looks like units in Age 3 blends into the terrain more.
The skirmisher vs archer thing has never made sense. I feel like you're just used to it.
The crossbowman beats the skirmisher because he has more range.
What? no?
Paladin has more health, attack and armour than Heavy Camel Rider but can't kill it
Flavio Sobbin that ones from historical basis. Camels work a lot better than horses in deserts and so they had an advantage in fighting. Also I believe there was something involving horses panicking due to the stench of the camels
It’s the unit count for me. AoE 3’s lower unit count + siege/ships taking up much larger populations than the previous games’ universal 1, make the game feel more streamlined and simple to me, especially in a game that already has a smaller unit variety than 2.
There’s only so much you can do within the limits of the vanilla game. You build everything you can build, and then you go attack the enemy with the typical mix of artillery cavalry and infantry. Every game feels the same on AoE 3, AoE 2 feels like it’s possibilities are endless in comparison.
Especially with the remakes of 2 raising the vanilla population limit and max map size of the game, 2 just feels so much more massive in scale. By the late game the cities are sprawling, dozens of villagers are bustling around working, and the armies can be massive. 2 puts the “Empire” in Age of Empires, the ceiling is so high for how powerful you can get. 3 feels more like… Age of Settlement.
Tbh if they had kept the game centered in the “old world”, had the main maps be larger and set in the traditional places of the series and more akin to 2, with attached “satellite” maps you could send your units to travel to within a game to set up colonies as we see them in the actual game… it could have been something truly special. 3 should have been 2’s post-imperial age expanded to include colonization for the colonial era. Instead it separates you from the Empires that give the franchise its name and confines you to the colonized fringes of the world.
The time period could have given us the ability to recreate massive early-modern wars like the Napoleonic Wars and the 7 years war. Experience the full extent of what an empire was at a time that brought about the first wars that could be considered global conflicts. Instead we get to experience what is in the grand scheme of things a tiny backwoods theatre in much larger wars. You can no longer annihilate and conquer the enemy empires. You can only… take frontier land from them and make them surrender.
The oddest change in AoE3 for me are the stances. Every unit type has its own set of stances, which mostly adds surprise micromanagement to the game as you _can't_ order an _entire_ group to enter a stance. You have to _manually_ set the stance for each unit type within the group, else you end up wondering why half of your army is running all over the place after ordering them to Stand Ground.
Interesting! Suggestion: make such a video on Age of Mythology??? That needs a DE of its own
Age 2: hit structures with swords= sets it on fire
Age 3: hit structures with torches=sets it on fire
*point for age 3*
you forgot to mention you can make infantary and cav 5 units at the time, wich combined wth cards, it means your army can be desimated and the next second you have 20 new units ready to go
4:39
As a player who actually likes AoE3 very much, it pains me to say this, but the identities of Musketeers vs. Skirmishers are actually even more nuanced and confusing than this. As of the expansions, Skirmishers *aren't* light infantry - they are just classified as "infantry". Musketeers are classified as both heavy infantry AND infantry, because units in AoE3 can have multiple types assigned to them.
What "light infantry" actually applies to are a few particular units which *look* like infantry, but function essentially as cavalry, hence why attacks against them are nearly as effective as they would be against units that are considered cavalry. Off the top of my head, the only examples of actual "light infantry" I can think of are Rattan Shields, Tiger Claws, Eagle Runner Knights, and Coyote Runners - the former two being a native trade post units, and the latter two belonging to the Aztecs, who obviously have no cavalry. To muddy the waters even further, these units are NOT also considered "infantry", and therefore do not take bonus damage from the usual anti-infantry sources. Except the Tiger Claw... because.
Consequently, don't think that weird "light infantry" attack bonus your Musketeers have in melee combat is going to help very much against Skirmishers. Their melee attacks will bypass Skirmishers' anti-ranged armor at least, and Musketeers have better melee combat than Skirmishers do overall, but you won't be getting a 2.25x damage modifier against them.
Actually, AoE2 has similar multi-unit-type thing behind the scene. Take camels as an example, irrc, they are "Calvary", "Camels" and even "Ships" for whatever reason before the expansion. Similar thing happens to most unique units as well. The only different is, AoE2 made all that hidden, while AoE3 decided to be more open to the player.
interesting how the same points are applied to Civilization, but in reverse (I'm referencing the part where each nation in AoE2 feels the same). I've seen countless times people criticizing Civilization for all the nations having the same playstyle and same end goal, while in AoE2 it is, apparantely, an upside. Guess it's just personal preference
Ya cause civ isnt as conpetetive as aoe 2 . To be honest.
In an RTS being familiar with everything is more critical coz your timing is critical. in a turn-based game its not that big of an issue.