You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.61 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Age of Empires III
Bottom
Topic Subject:Age of Empires III
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
RoN_Fan
Skirmisher
posted 06-09-04 10:01 AM EDT (US)         
I want Ensemble Studios to make an Age of Empires III,or
Age of Enlightment Would be a Good name.....

If they do make Age of Empires III then i want guns in it!!!,it's so cool seeing the british infantry march like on Liberty's Kids,or The Patroit....
I Have seen Pirates of the Caribbean...But the infantry
just run around and it seems like No one is commanding them...

AuthorReplies:
SkyCube
Skirmisher
posted 07-11-04 08:17 AM EDT (US)     51 / 61       
Nice idea about the false proof thing, but I really dont think it would fit into a historical based game. I mean, even in napolionic times governments didn't really need "proof", they would obviously need a reason but not proof. The ordinary people back then didn't really get too involved in politics, they couldn't kept up very well anyway,they couldn't just switch on the news or anything.
I think ES should certinly stick to the historical theme, a modern game would just ruin it i think. but I think they should go back to a 2D engine to enable larger troop numbers. & should enable proper battle tactics not just a counter system.
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 07-11-04 12:47 PM EDT (US)     52 / 61       
Tributing territories sounds like a nifty idea! I'm all for more advanced diplomacy options.
Lord_Guilherme
Skirmisher
posted 07-11-04 01:25 PM EDT (US)     53 / 61       
Tributing terrorists... Never thought of that. Nice Idea!
But we will find terrorists only in nowadays times. AoE, as the name says, is AGE OF EMPIRE"S". Today only USA can be called an Empire. So the game should probably happens before the World War II. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was a Bin Ladden trying to destroy the Judaic-Christian Western Society in those times.
And I think too the game should go back to the 2D engine. AoM had few units. In Empire Earth you could get more than 600 pop in a 1vs1. And it lagged less than AoM. I also prefer the 2D graphics of EE than the 3D graphics of AoM. The smoke was really cool, the units were proportional and very good looking.
SandyMan
VIP
(id: ES_Sandyman)
posted 07-13-04 03:33 PM EDT (US)     54 / 61       
I must say that the USA fits none of the historical definitions of "empire" except for size. We're a really big country. But we don't have ownership of vast land areas across the globe. We have bases in lots of other countries (by treaty) but that's not the same as ownership. They can (and sometimes do) kick us out. Sure we own Hawaii, and Guam, and a few other small spots here and there, but they are hardly an economic asset. Heck, Britain and Holland each have more extra-territorial holdings than the US. Just because a nation is big and strong doesn't automatically make it an empire. Unless you consider Brazil and India to be empires, too.

Leaving real-world politics out of the issue (I do think Mr. Payton has been fooled by folks with axes to grind) politics and diplomacy played a COLOSSAL role in ancient wars as much as modern wars.

Consider the time period of Age of Kings - during that time, when a king went to war he had to consider the following political issues:

1) whether your vassals were loyal enough to bring troops to your support - whether you'd rewarded them enough in the past to get their aid.

2) how long they'd be willing to fight - whether you could get enough loot and land to make them happy afterwards.

3) some of your vassals probably held land from the enemy king as well as you - which side would THEY be on? (This is showed in the film Braveheart, where the Scots' knights turned against Wallace. This may seem "treacherous" to a modern viewer, but on the other hand, these knights actually owned more land from King Edward than they did from the Scottish royal house, so where did their loyalties lie? In my opinion they should have stuck with Scotland anyway, but clearly it was a problem.)

4) is your daughter married to the enemy king? Or his son? Or vice versa? What kind of kinship relations do you have with these guys? How will that affect the war?

5) While you're off campaigning in some other land, will enemies come raiding from another direction? Example: if the French king goes off attacking Spain or Italy, the Burgundians or English might backstab him.

6) What will the pope think (if you're from western Europe)? Are the enemies infidels, or Christians, or heretics? Or Orthodox?

Medieval politics were actually far more complicated than modern politics. We NEVER have to worry about whether Putin or Blair or Bush is connected via marriage to another nation, and at least Western nations don't (officially) care what religion their enemies are. Plus our armies aren't made up of a bunch of semi-independent hereditary fiefdoms.

[This message has been edited by ES_Sandyman (edited 07-13-2004 @ 03:37 PM).]

Johnny_Deppig
Skirmisher
posted 07-13-04 08:16 PM EDT (US)     55 / 61       

Quote:

Consider the time period of Age of Kings - during that time, when a king went to war he had to consider the following political issues:

Just got to thinking when I read that, considering the comparison of medieval to modern war politics. I think there are tons of similarities there:

1) whether your vassals were loyal enough to bring troops to your support - whether you'd rewarded them enough in the past to get their aid.

US "coalition" (largely much smaller states wanting US favor).. and the hatred towards France for not supporting them now, because the allied forces liberated France in 1945.

2) how long they'd be willing to fight - whether you could get enough loot and land to make them happy afterwards.


oil companies moving into Iraq, and countries pulling out now due to lack of popular support, or general war weariness increasing, as it does in the US

3) some of your vassals probably held land from the enemy king as well as you - which side would THEY be on? (This is showed in the film Braveheart, where the Scots' knights turned against Wallace. This may seem "treacherous" to a modern viewer, but on the other hand, these knights actually owned more land from King Edward than they did from the Scottish royal house, so where did their loyalties lie? In my opinion they should have stuck with Scotland anyway, but clearly it was a problem.)

Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been western "allies" of sorts in the past, whose loyalties have changed.. the loyalty of people willing to fight Saddam Hussein but who also fight the US for their personal gain is also an example.

4) is your daughter married to the enemy king? Or his son? Or vice versa? What kind of kinship relations do you have with these guys? How will that affect the war?

Medieval marriages werent love affairs, more of business arrangements (as Im sure you know). Same as France´s and Germany´s business with Iraq, and their interests conflicting with a war.. the business relationship of american companies with the Iraqi government has prolly been a reason this war didnt happen sooner.

5) While you're off campaigning in some other land, will enemies come raiding from another direction? Example: if the French king goes off attacking Spain or Italy, the Burgundians or English might backstab him.

Of course Mexico aint gonna invade the US now.. but backstabbing has occurred in this conflict, while Saddam Hussein was fighting UN forces in the gulf war, there were insurrections in Kurdish territories, making a move for it when he was weakened on another front.

6) What will the pope think (if you're from western Europe)? Are the enemies infidels, or Christians, or heretics? Or Orthodox?

The pope isnt a major factor anymore, but dont tell me that catholics werent interested in his views on the war, or that the US authorities didnt try to influence him either.. The fact that Iraq has a largely muslim population has had a huge influence on peoples opinions throughout the world

Sure, medieval times were a period of extremely fierce politics, and a complicated hierarchy where you really only trusted yourself as a king or politician. But things arent that different. The fact that the US doesnt have to worry about others´ opinions has more to do with the fact that they have the military power to do anything they want, than with a perception that others dont have opinions. Back in the cold war, both superpowers had to worry a great deal about whether the involvement in a conflict could trigger a nuclear war. The notion that things are less complicated now is an illusion. West thought that dealing with the muslim world was a simple one-way affair, before september 11. Now we now that complicated religious and cultural differences cant be ignored when dealing with politics. A powderkeg of malice and hate that we helped to create is about to explode, and that explosion will hurt us as well. Its not just a couple of Israelis an Palestinians lying dead in the streets now, it could be you and me next time, and learning about the history of the middle-eastern and related conflicts may prevent that.

One thing I know Ive learned from games like AoM, is that whoever´s in charge of politics and war, they want to win for themselves, and where it is two dead suicide-scout ulfsarks in AoM, it is two dead marines in Iraq. I have a suspicion that politicians act like they were playing a game, and they play like I do on the computer. And I wouldnt want to be a soldier in the games I play.

Sorry if thing got carried off, its late and Im in a philosophic mood..

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 07-13-2004 @ 08:32 PM).]

spongeman90
Skirmisher
posted 07-14-04 01:46 PM EDT (US)     56 / 61       

Quote:

The age series is based in the real world and what happened in Iraq could be used in AoE III.

i think that should be aoe IV or later if the do more than four....there's a lot of wars that happen between the time aoe2 left off and now, so that should be later on in the series


Smiley faces are your friends. Hippies are your friends. Hobos are your friends. Why don't we just say everyone and everything is your friend?
Arcanjo TM
Skirmisher
posted 07-20-04 12:16 PM EDT (US)     57 / 61       
I think the idea of a "people happiness" from Lord Guilherme it's a great one.

If you improve your cities and make people's live better and easyer they could produce more and become harder to convert (using AoK as example).

If you don't do this, then your collect ratings fall down and your civilians can be converted faster.

Victur Slayer
Skirmisher
posted 07-23-04 03:11 AM EDT (US)     58 / 61       
In sweden, it is anounced!

http://www.webhallen.com/prod.php?id=26535


May the flies of a thousand camels haunt you'r armpits!
InFnit
Skirmisher
posted 07-23-04 03:37 AM EDT (US)     59 / 61       
AOE3 is mistaken for RTS3 which equals AOM
SandyMan
VIP
(id: ES_Sandyman)
posted 07-26-04 11:50 AM EDT (US)     60 / 61       
Must point out that a medieval vassal was NOT like a modern-time ally. A vassal was part of your own country. If we had vassals nowadays it would be as if President Bush had to ask the guy in charge of the 1st Armored Division for permission to post his unit overseas, because it was his private army.
Zappos
Skirmisher
posted 07-26-04 11:32 PM EDT (US)     61 / 61       
Thats exactly why Team games are more like real warfare.

"Dude! We're trying to rush, what are you doing?"
"Not yet. Wait."
"Dude! They're killing us!"
"Almost done."
"Dude!.........."

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames