u/FutureLynx_

Does anyone share the same opinion? Why would i want to play AoE in a perspective camera. I look at AoE2DE it just feels great to look at. Everything looks so much more clear and makes sense.

Also its the same with other games that went 3D:

Red Alert 2 -> Red Alert 3.

Caesar 3 -> Caesar 4.

Lords of the Realm 2 -> 3.

Stronghold Crusader -> Other Strongholds that went 3D.

Sudden Strike 2 -> Sudden Strike 3.

So many examples.

In terms of game mechanics, not in terms of graphics, music, context or voice acting. Im undecided between these 2. I like both. But i need to choose 1 to specialize in the play in multiplayer.

So for me it seems Rise of Nations is better because the economy is more streamlined and at the same time diversified. In Red Alert everything is dependent on Ore. I hate fighting over ore. I like to attack cities and fight battles.

Or you just place your tower only in the gold mine?

Is in maps like Black Forest. The other day I had 3 entries. First walled with palisade. To the point i didnt have wood to build a lumber camp, so had to cope with chopping wood around my tc for a minute. Then in feudal spent my stone.

Enemy tried to rush. But couldn't get in. So we still won the match.

But i think at some point this is not worth it, right?

And a bit more of a stretch there could be a way to convert castles. Its not a very OP thing because monks getting close to a castle would die very easily against arrows. Though i guess players would just delete the castle.
In OpenRA (Red Alert) when you are using an engineer to get a building (similar to conversion), the building is locked and you cant delete it.

Modificaram a uva para ser sem caroço? Quem é que acha que isto é boa ideia? Isto tem que ter alguma contrapartida, n? Isto vai ser standard um dia?

I love aoe2 but its so basic and superficial in terms of actual combat mechanics. No flank bonus. No charge. No special abilities. No generals. No morale.

Imagine a medieval game without those cavalry charges. I mean come on. How is this not a thing?

At least Rise of Nations T&P includes a lot of eras so it kind of has an excuse to not have cavalry charges.

But in AoE2 even the damn cavalry archer must stop the horse to shoot. How does that make any sense?

A game like Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots has generals, abilities, attrition, bonus to nearby units close to the general, better formations, flank bonus, rear bonus. Cavalry archers shoot while running. Cities can be conquered. Better diplomacy system. Better tech system, better economy system. Units and buildings have inflation (important so you diversify your army and dont spam just knights or whatever), resources with bonuses, wonders with bonuses. And whatever else im forgetting.

The only flaw of RoN is that it doesnt have AoE2 walls.

I feel like RoN is the Nicola Tesla of rts games, while AoE2 is the famous comercial Thomas Edison.

Vivo em Lisboa. Mas a minha única referência em termos do campo, é o Minho. Eu gosto muito do minho mas não quero viver lá.

As pessoas são simpácticas, mas metem-se muito. Ha intrigas, invejas. Muito mau olhado, e julgam-te por teres cão e por não teres.

Eu tenho noção disto apesar de ter sido sempre bem tratado vejo como eles são uns com os outros ás vezes, aqueles que vivem lá permanentemente.

Em Lisboa vivo muito isolado, no meu apartamento. Trabalho em casa, e practicamente não tenho amigos, nem actividades excepto o ginásio, há uns anos para cá. Tenho mais paz assim e sou feliz assim.

Nem sempre foi assim, mas agr tou nessa fase. E portanto ás vezes sinto que não estou a usufruir nada de viver na cidade, porque gosto mais é de tar em casa a fazer os meu projectos.

Ás vezes penso em mudar-me para uma região longe desta confusão extra que não me diz nada e não me benefícia. Talvez assim até economizar um pouco por isso, respirar ar puro e plantar umas coisas.

A cidade e as suas cenas já não me dizem nada. Nem sequer ao hospital vou. A última vez que fui a um hospital foi há mais de 10 anos atrás.

Mas quando penso em ir para uma terrinha, penso sempre tipo, e se as pessoas lá são chatas? E se me começam a arranjar conflictos. É isso que eu quero evitar ao máximo.

It showed a message saying, blablabla player disconnected, game saved for restore, do you want to see the map? I pressed no. Like wtf... Is this allowed?

So you are losing a game, you disconnect, and you dont lose the points/game. How is this fair?

I got injured some years ago and had to stop. Im trying to get back, but its not easy. Mainly i do it now as a something like a yoga. I train the freezes a bit like calisthenics and its mostly it.

For some time this gave me some heartache and depression not being able to do the sport i was most found of.

The best cope i found was videogames, modding videogames, and making games.

From the day i had to stop training i thought the rest of my life would be a painful journey where i just have to endure like most of us.

We cant quit because of the people that love us. Even though i prefer not to rely on that.

Gaming is amazing. It keeps me happy, just like bboying used to. But its unlikely that i get old and forgotten in it or injured and have to stop.

I play mostly RTS games. I hope one day i can train as hard as i used to. Just the training itself, the feeling of training used to be enough to make me feel good in this life.

If one day you find yourself in my situation, either because of injuries, health problems, or feeling unmotivated, need to work, dont hit your head in the wall too much. Take a break, and find another hobbie, or just pick up one of these awesome multiplayer games and become really good at it.

You will also eventually grow old and the injuries will be more likely to happen, and things will get harder, so keep that in the back of your head, so you dont get crysis if that happens one day.

It is good to love b-boying. But everything we get too attached, especially when your identity becomes it, is dangerous.

Its like those samurais, and medieval knights. Once they were not able to do it, they lost their identity right? Just remember you are a b-boy, but you are a human being first, be smart and flexible, learn to appreciate also other things. It turns out, that it can also make you appreciate more your true passion.

I played Company of Heroes, and Steel Division.

I think Steel Division is the most realistic modern warfare tactical game. But I really dont like this game. It is boring as hell. It is too large scale, too zoomed out, to the point we only see the units icons most of the time.

Company of Heroes is better in this aspect. Much more fun combat mechanics and abilities. But the economy and the building system is so basic that I consider it an inferior game compared to Red Alert 2. Even though its abilities are the most well polished of all the games I played. There is an old precursor to CoH, that was Axis & Allies RTS that i still prefer.

I think the best scale is Sudden Strike 4. It is a good middle between Company of Heroes scale and Steel Division scale. Yet also no decent building and economy system makes it extremely boring for me.

Is RUSE any different in these aspects? It seems it is made by the same company that made Steel Division... So idk...

Would be really cool if archers when inside a siege tower would make it shoot. That would make it worth it.

I mean, why create such a niche unit that is never used. I have been playing in DE for some time now, and I didnt see a single game where they were used...

In late imperial war, I always have some vils around my trebs to repair them. Though i wonder if it is worth it from a cost benefit analysis, since the vils are sitting there idle if the trebs are not attacked.

Is there anything creative that im missing that I can use them for while they are there waiting for the treb to get damaged? I thought about:

- Making them chop wood nearby. Though there might be no wood to chop nearby. And the trip to go to the wood and come back, might be too long and then you lose the trebs before you repair them.

- Make them build palisade gates around. Though these can also disturb your formation.

- Make them build a mill and some farms and they work the farms nearby. Though this occupies front line tiles that are necessary to build stuff.

- Place them inside rams, so the rams go faster, and make the rams patrol in front of the trebs and army to soak up arrows.

- Make them build towers. Place the vils inside the towers when idle, so they attack enemies nearby. I think this is the best.

Edit: Just tested rams with vils inside them, they dont move faster with vils in them, they only move faster with actual infantry, which is very stupid. Like why would a ram only move fast with infantry and not vils. In theory vils should be even more suitable for that kind of work... What a waste...

So we can protect lumbers and mines with palisades and houses. But that doesnt protect from archers right?

I saw a player doing towers in the lumber. Is that effective with all civs to deter flush?

Though if they upgrade them? I just really dislike early combat. When we fight with 3 or 4 units. Its really annoying.

AoE2 has been overall my favourite game for many years. I play it almost everyday.

Some of the players I play with I have known them for almost a decade now.

Recently I'm trying to get into DE, but there are some things that makes me want to just play the old versions.

First of all let me say I dont like rush games. I like booming and playing a good long battle that involves big armies and treb war in maps like Black Forest.

Yesterday especially I had like 6 games in a row, where they ended all without me even being able to put up a proper fight.

A player gets rushed, he leaves.

Another game, we enter enemy and kill some vils, he leaves. No rebooming, no resistance spirit. If I knew they were going to quit like that, I would maybe not attack so strong.

Another, Ally rushes enemy, rush fails, he leaves almost without a fight. What a waste of time.

So thinking this is probably because its a team game, I went with 1v1, thinking i can have more control there since I will have no allies quitting. And can roleplay so to not scare my enemy away.

One game the dude didnt stop cutting. We had a open front that I tried not to attack immediately because he had nothing yet. But he starts cutting everywhere. I wanted to fight him directly but instead he kept trying to f around and opening everywhere while wasting all his gold sending stupid armies without trebs against castles and a fully boomed eco. He was able to get into my eco, but i even needed to kill some vils so... He then resigns... Boring.

Another game 1v1 I decided to wall my enemy very well, to deter him from rushing me, and communicating that I wont rush him, so we both boom and have a good fight. I made 8 trebs, pikemen, gunmen and prepared for a battle at around min 30 something.

I start trebing his units that were already waiting me beyond walls. As im reaching 200 pop. What he does? Resigns. Wtf.

Another game, this one more interesting but still boring experience. it was ranked 4v4 arabia. I was rushed by 2 players both with archer then crossbow. Barely survived. Just taking punishment and trying to stay alive. Meanwhile my pocket player builds an army of around 20-30. Says GG and leaves the game. We stay 3v4. I ask team if i can leave since I have just some survivor vils and buildings hiding in the corner of the map. They ask me to not leave. So they boomed and started attacking enemy players. They basically win 2v4 then. And just before the enemies start resigning im now making paladins, but they dont enter battle because they resign before that. So again shit experience for me.

The best game I had so far was an FFA game DM amazon tunnel. Where I had some good battles. But a lot of armies acting too disposable. I still feel that if it was the old version it would be better.

Note that none of this would happen in the old versions. Especially in AoK back then, the players reboom very easily. And imperial battles were long battles of attrition, where each soldier counts, and that could last hours... When a player leaves he had to explain why he leaves, or he could get banned/blocked. I have seen games where one player lost his base, and they then pushed the other side and win 3v4...

These are some of my concerns with DE compared to old versions:

1. The units seem made of cardboard.

They die too fast and seems they have no collision checks. This is a huge contrast to what seems to be the more bulky pikemen of AoK and the army formations that could block enemy armies more easily. Its like you are commanding an army of lemmings, where micro is less relevant than before. Onagers look like plastic toys that die too easily, and their attack is not as huge as it used to be, though this can be good too.

2. Imperial wars become civ win very fast.

3. Trash war doesnt work as well as it worked before. An army of skirms in AoK could beat champions if well microed, hitting and running.

4. All onagers can cut. I personally dont like this feature, because often im having a good game with a slow push in black forest. And then suddenly someone cuts and is killing all your trade. Resign. In AoK and AoC we would say No cut in the description so civs with Siege Onager dont cut.

5. In old version in imperial war you needed to micro your trebs, repair your trebs, you would try to not lose a single treb. Trebs shot faster and were more accurate. You could hit ground with them on archers. You can still do that but its way less effective.

6. You would spend gold wisely and make more trash armies. You would rotate the armies. Shield your archers with skirms in front and pikemen too. DE all became too superficial, just make whatever gold army and send it forward.

7. Too much hand holding in terms of automation. There a keys for everything now. And everything is automated. In AoK, if you are on sheep, and go for the boar, you lose the food of the sheep. Your vils when they finished building a lumber they wouldnt go directly to the wood. I understand these automations make the game easier, but its another skill that would differentiate the good players from the bad players, those who can micro economy and battle at the same time.

8. TC's costing stone was never a good idea. I think they could cost more wood. But stone limits the game in terms of strategy and rebooming players. And you can see players resigning when they lose just 1 TC. This sucks.

9. Not being able to cut trees with vil and building. This in my opinion was not a bug but a feature. In AoK 2.0, if you had 1 vil left, you could escape to the corner of the map, and start cutting a tree with a vil, and then building a palisade, to make a tunnel escape inside the wood, and then rebuild inside the wood. Do you see how magical this is? And since only civs with Siege Onager can cut trees, it was harder for them to reach you.

Positive things:

1. Units can go inside Siege Rams. Thats awesome.
2. More civs with functional Cavalry Archers like the Tatars. But the Mangudais are worse. They have more frame rate delay, and that sucks. Mongols was my favourite civ, but these mangudai I dont like them.
3. More elephant units.
4. Herbal medicine making units actually heal in the castle.
5. Palisade gates.
6. Zooming in and out as Caruso said.

So my favourite game at the moment is Rise of Nations: Thrones & Patriots. Especially the graphics. I love these old school isometric / orthographic view games.

I really like all its mechanics, except for the artillery.

The artillery makes no sense at all. It shoots too short range, too fast, and too accurate.

I think it should behave more like Red Alert 2 V3 rocket launcher in terms of range (even though V3's are mostly useless too because they get shot by AA and cant shoot into fog). OpenRA did a great job with the artillery, making it long range and able to fire at the fog.

But in most games its not too long range or too accurate making it almost like a weak alternative to tanks.

There is a bombard button, but it does not do anything much different than the actual standard attack.

I know that im maybe asking too much, but I cant stand the camera and those warped perspective 3D games like Red Alert 3, and C&C Generals. I prefer old isometric games like AoE2, Stronghold Crusader. Is Red Alert 2 or OpenRA the only 2D alternative to Rise of Nations with proper modern artillery?

I dont know what it is. Its maybe the contrast, or the dark effect. Anyone shares the same opinion?

We never run out of trees in a game because they are normally quite abundant. But it happened sometimes. I wonder why this isnt a thing. It could be a cool mechanic.

Edit: I think the commenters are right, if the trees spawn too fast then it can break the balance of the game.

But if you have like a building like the other user mentioned, the Forester like in Settlers 2, that costs wood and stone, then it could be worth or fun to build it sometimes. It would go around plant trees slowly and randomly. You could make those new trees less quality with less wood to give a bonus to those who have natural wild trees.

I've been playing a lot of AoE2DE lately. Yesterday I played 4 games in a few hours, and honestly, it felt like a complete waste of time.

Players wall, then boom. Someone eventually messes up their wall, or isn't fully boomed by around minute 30-40 and has no army, so they get attacked and resign. Then the whole team resigns.

So I decided to play FFA games instead. At least if one player resigns, the game can continue. But FFA feels quite shallow too.

There is often no real reason to attack another player, because you don't gain much from doing it. You spend resources trying to kill them, weaken yourself in the process, and then if your other neighbor decides to attack you, suddenly you're fighting a 1v2 and you're dead.

So the optimal strategy is often just to wall yourself in and wait for everyone else to kill each other. Which, honestly, is pretty boring.

In one particular game, a player attacked me, and I completely destroyed his army. But I didnt want to kill him. So I was like, hope he gets the point. So I walled him. But he kept coming at me. So I had to destroy him completely. Perhaps he thought I was walling because I was weak somehow.

This made me think that one of the reasons strategy games can feel shallow and lack replayability is that their diplomacy systems are often extremely superficial.

You start the game with your little city, and the only real reason you're there is to destroy the enemies as quickly as possible, by whatever means are available. There isn't really another way to play.

No meaningful ceasefires. No vassalage. No reason to attack someone just to get a reward from pillaging and then withdraw. The objective is basically just: go there and destroy everything.

The only classic RTS I can think of that tries to improve on this is Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. It allows you to pillage. It gives you rewards for destroying enemy buildings and makes diplomacy somewhat more complex. So it actually makes sense to attack an enemy even if you don't intend to completely destroy them.

OpenRA also has rewards for killing and destroying enemy units and buildings, which pushes things a little bit in this direction.

I think RTS games could have a lot more strategic depth if the relationships between players and the diplomacy system were more developed.

For example, you could have a system where you need an actual casus belli to declare war on a neighbor and attack them, somewhat like Crusader Kings.

Then, after winning a war, you could receive a territorial reward and establish a treaty that lasts X amount of time. Or you could make the defeated player your vassal, with them paying you X resources every 5 minutes, where he would now help you win the game, or plot to rebel against you when possible.

Obviously, treaties would need cooldowns and other limitations to prevent abuse.

The important thing is that a war wouldn't necessarily have to be about completely destroying the other player and making them resign. It could be about making progress, taking territory temporarily and pillage it, forcing concessions, or establishing a favorable relationship, without completely destroying your opponent and exhausting your own economy in the process.

Other than Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, there are these mechanics that I think can improve replayability and sustainable gameplay:

AoE2 Reboom:

One of the things that made AoE2 fun for me, especially in the older versions, was how easy it was to reboom.

Especially when the TC only cost 275 wood.

I remember playing FFA games where there would always be that one player who would run away with at least one villager, or hide somewhere inside a forest, and rebuild from there.

Then you're distracted fighting other enemies and thinking that he's completely dead, and suddenly he comes back out and attacks you. That's pretty cool.

And I think this is only possible because AoE2 has such a well-designed economy, based primarily on wood and food. Gold and stone aren't essential to keep playing.

If there were only one essential resource, like the ore in Red Alert, players would resign the moment they lost access to their ore. And that can happen very quickly in Red Alert.

So Red Alert has much less reboom potential than AoE2.

Crusader Kings 3, diplomacy and relations

Crusader Kings allows you to establish vassals, make treaties, and requires a casus belli to start a war.

And if you lose a war, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the game. You can even become a vassal yourself.

I honestly think Crusader Kings has the best diplomacy/treaty system of any game I've played.

Obviously, it's not an RTS, but it is real-time, so maybe some of these mechanics could work in an RTS.

Hegemony 3: Clash of the Ancients

Hegemony has a very superficial diplomacy system. As far as I know, you're basically either at war or paying someone to be at peace, unless you haven't encountered the faction yet.

But it's probably the best example we have of a grand strategy game with a concurrent RTS battle system.

So perhaps adding a much more complex diplomacy layer would make the game 100x harder to design and balance.

That said, Hegemony does have the mechanics of pillage, where you can attack an enemy simply to capture workers or pillage a city and then retreat.

Also worth mentioning the very well polished veterancy system. Veterancy alone can make you benefit from a short war with a neighbor because it will give experience to your units.

It really sucks that most RTS games have no veterancy.

Knights of Honor 2

This game actually implements a lot of the systems I'm talking about.

The pillage system in particular is almost exactly what I mean. You can win wars through pillaging without having to conquer a city.

You can establish vassals, and diplomacy has a level of complexity somewhere between classic Total War and Crusader Kings.

It's not an RTS either, but it is real-time and has separate battles.

So, what games am I missing?

Are there any other real-time strategy or grand strategy games with good mechanics around diplomacy, casus belli, ceasefires, vassalage, pillaging, territorial rewards, or reboom that could be applied properly?

And what do you think of RTS games like AoE2 and Red Alert 2 if these kinds of mechanics were expanded?

I feel like there is a lot of unexplored potential here. A war doesn't always have to end with one player completely destroyed and resigning. There could be a lot more interesting outcomes in between.