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.22 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » The economy...itīs the economy!
Bottom
Topic Subject:The economy...itīs the economy!
unjugon
Skirmisher
posted 04-11-05 11:07 AM EDT (US)         
First and foremost, the complex economy management (or harassing for that matter) is what really sets Age2 apart from the rest of RTS games.
Having to constantly rebuild farms isnīt fun, so I loved it when they changed it for AoC. But that is about as far as an age game should go in terms of helping the player manage the economy (or the villager going straight to gather wood right after constructing the lumber mill).
I, honestly, was deeply disppointed by the autoque feature in AoM, as well as inifinite farms and fixed TC settlements.

My view on this matter is clear: deep economy is a trademark of the "Age of Empires" series. It should be kept in Age3 as one of the most important features/aspects. Other games donīt even come close to the subtlety and depth of Age2 economy. Place a tank on a cliff behind the minerals? Raever drop? Blademaster harassing wisps? Give me a break.
I think the key is that all resources in Age2 are spread out all over the map, and it works great. The hunting vs farming options in Age3 does sound promising, and I look forward to it. Trade routes concern me, tho.

So, if itīs ok, I would like to remind ES about all this. They know about it, but it should be said once more now there are just months till release: make managing/harassing the economy challenging and rewarding!

After all, if I wanted a nice distraction free of much thinking Iīd be playing WC3 or EE.

On another note, Iīd like to to say that hussars/light cav were too effective at disrupting the enemyīs economy in AoC. People just mindlessly rally stables to different parts on the opponentīs base and forget about it. It could all be solvedby giving hussars a tiny gold cost added to the food cost. Something like 80F+5Gold instead of just 80F would be perfect...just a thought in case something similar shows up in Age3.

Greetings all, thx for reading.

Edit: meant to say Age2 in the first sentence.

Jugon

[This message has been edited by unjugon (edited 04-11-2005 @ 12:41 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
ES_DeathShrimp
VIP
posted 04-11-05 01:37 PM EDT (US)     1 / 22       
We went with the new trade route model precisely because it gets you spread out all over the map. The old (kind of goofy) AOK model let you have a jillion trade carts safely behind your lines where (at best) you'd just get some annoying raids trying to disrupt them.

Here's something interesting we learned. A few months ago, Trading Posts (the things you build on Trade Routes) were really expensive. We knew they paid for themselves quickly, so we didn't think they should be too cheap, and we also wanted them to feel like a strategy, which implies some sort of investment.

Well, we came up with the idea that maybe expensive was the wrong way to go. So we tried making Trading Posts super cheap. After all, they're fun and we want players to build them. Now we see a lot more of them (literally every game), and competing over trade routes became an interesting dynamic in the game. The choice isn't *if* you should build them, but when, where and how long you should defend one that the enemy is attacking, and of course when you should go try and knock down the enemies' Posts.

KnightsTemplar
Skirmisher
posted 04-11-05 02:06 PM EDT (US)     2 / 22       
fixed trade route sounds good to me.. now we would really see some good ambush tactics.
I like that point made by DS about having a zillion trade carts behind ur walls... and trade up with ur partner to amass infinite gold. That reallt spoilt it for me... no risk... too safe...

the trade post thing.. i am not too clear about. if i am correct.. there is a native american camp.. and u have to go there and establish ur trading post. then the trading starts ....
.. do u trade between ur town center/post or market/post... and do u have the freedom to build the other end of the trade route.. or is that also fixed ????


-:- The Difference between Genius and Stupidity is that Genius Has its Limits !! -:-
Albert Einstien
unjugon
Skirmisher
posted 04-12-05 07:40 AM EDT (US)     3 / 22       
Sounds good, DS. Good job on the game.

Quote:

We went with the new trade route model precisely because it gets you spread out all over the map. The old (kind of goofy) AOK model let you have a jillion trade carts safely behind your lines where (at best) you'd just get some annoying raids trying to disrupt them.


From this I understand that trade routes only make sense in team games then, is that right? Or do you trade with natives also, kinda like the fur trade in Canada in the 1700īs?
Are both ends of trade routes similar to Age2 markets?

Thx for the reply, I am looking forward to the game.

Sunshine
Banned
posted 04-12-05 07:58 AM EDT (US)     4 / 22       
I agree that having a complex and diverse economy was a nice bonus in the Age of Empires series. If not a bonus, a necessity (at least to me).

Quote:

We went with the new trade route model precisely because it gets you spread out all over the map. The old (kind of goofy) AOK model let you have a jillion trade carts safely behind your lines where (at best) you'd just get some annoying raids trying to disrupt them.

Here's something interesting we learned. A few months ago, Trading Posts (the things you build on Trade Routes) were really expensive. We knew they paid for themselves quickly, so we didn't think they should be too cheap, and we also wanted them to feel like a strategy, which implies some sort of investment.

Which begs the question, DS, will we be able to have other forms of trade as well, such as sea trade? Do we have more diplomatic options than in previous Age of Empires games? Will the current Trade Routes be able to go over obstaces (eg. Rivers - railway bridges, road bridges, Marshes - canoes, etc.) or do they circumvent any obstacles which come into their path? I ask as there have been a few cases where canoes have been seen in several screenshots.

Quote:

Well, we came up with the idea that maybe expensive was the wrong way to go. So we tried making Trading Posts super cheap. After all, they're fun and we want players to build them. Now we see a lot more of them (literally every game), and competing over trade routes became an interesting dynamic in the game. The choice isn't *if* you should build them, but when, where and how long you should defend one that the enemy is attacking, and of course when you should go try and knock down the enemies' Posts.

I realize the next question may sound obvious, but how will we be able to defend them? Will it be set up the same way as in previous Age of Empires games, in which you build a few towers, a small regiment - perhaps even a wall - as though the trading post is seperated from your main area of settlement? Or will it be set up in a new way, such as the possibility in which it becomes part of your main settlement - as the area in which you focus most of your attention, and where the growth of your settlement spreads out from?

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is, how much do you get from trading in AoE3? Is it an important facet for your AoE3 civilization or is it an added bonus - something which isn't necessary, but is good to have anyway.

Thank you, DS. You provide excellent support.

[This message has been edited by Angel Sunny (edited 04-12-2005 @ 08:02 AM).]

Optimus Arion
Skirmisher
posted 04-12-05 10:54 AM EDT (US)     5 / 22       
I think it's bad that stone is out of the game because it makes the economy thing less compplicated, and it also seems to me that there will be no real fortifications made of stone, becauce it would be weird to build it from wood and gold...

But I think that I'll just hav to trust ES!


Good RTS-games:
Civilization II, Age of Empires series, Starcraft, C&C series
Centurion_13
Skirmisher
posted 04-12-05 11:05 AM EDT (US)     6 / 22       
well I think it works like money is used to buy the stone.

This is fascinating, is it possible to trade with allies or only natives?

URep_Fuzzy
Skirmisher
posted 04-12-05 01:19 PM EDT (US)     7 / 22       
I think trade routes are just there, permanent, always running. When you build an outpost next to it; that is when you start getting profit from controlling the particular area. Also for that reason you have them marked on the map.

GL Pahlen's cavalry and Cossacks also got their share of cannonballs and canister from the Grand Battery and were obliged to withdraw out of the field of fire.
Indum
Banned
posted 04-12-05 06:41 PM EDT (US)     8 / 22       
No offense, but it's a real-time-strategey game. As in armies duking it out. If you want serious economy managment, try pharoh or stronghold.

But really, i accept economy is a large part of Empires, but many of us want fun and highly engaging action gameplay to take priority over making sure your brainless peasants know there's a nice ripe pig in front of them or that there's plenty of wood around so why aren't they busy chopping it down?

beekay
Skirmisher
(id: black_knight_101)
posted 04-12-05 06:51 PM EDT (US)     9 / 22       

Quote:

Having to constantly rebuild farms isnīt fun, so I loved it when they changed it for AoC. But that is about as far as an age game should go in terms of helping the player manage the economy (or the villager going straight to gather wood right after constructing the lumber mill).
I, honestly, was deeply disppointed by the autoque feature in AoM, as well as inifinite farms and fixed TC settlements.

I didn't like bothering to even click the damn replant button in AoC, I always ended up forgetting and I'd end up with huge fields of nothingness.

So, they should have an AQ for that, but nothing else.

As to the fixed settlements, that was an attempt to make the game more competitive, since they gave ~20 extra pop, and you had to fight for them.


sig
Thanatos
Skirmisher
(id: deathmaster666)
posted 04-12-05 10:33 PM EDT (US)     10 / 22       

Quote:

But really, i accept economy is a large part of Empires, but many of us want fun and highly engaging action gameplay to take priority over making sure your brainless peasants know there's a nice ripe pig in front of them or that there's plenty of wood around so why aren't they busy chopping it down?

Play Deathmatch!

Help me to tally the forums belief patterns, vote in my poll

Tally so far:-
Agnostics:18
Atheists:28
Theists:42
unjugon
Skirmisher
posted 04-13-05 09:39 AM EDT (US)     11 / 22       

Quote:

Quote:

But really, i accept economy is a large part of Empires, but many of us want fun and highly engaging action gameplay to take priority over making sure your brainless peasants know there's a nice ripe pig in front of them or that there's plenty of wood around so why aren't they busy chopping it down?

Play Deathmatch!


Exactly. Or Warcraft3.
barley_n_oats
Skirmisher
posted 04-13-05 10:28 AM EDT (US)     12 / 22       
WC3 = crappage. Unless you play the mods, (which are excellent, WC has some great modders). Not only did the normal econ management suck, the hero-oriented action was lame. Boring to watch, boring to play.

There should be a balance between economy and military. One one hand, I don't want to spend my time going back to my economy base every other click, but I don't want to be able to set up an economy and not look at it until the end of the game.

I want economy to be important (i.e. econ raids have significant effect), but I want to have chances (several, if possible) to duke it out with opponent armies.


ESO: oats
ESO2: dirtyoatmeal
Indum
Banned
posted 04-13-05 11:33 AM EDT (US)     13 / 22       
^could not put it better my self. Or to summerise it make sure economy hating warmongers (like myself) have as much fun as the economy-loving boomers.
jjgy
Skirmisher
posted 04-13-05 11:40 AM EDT (US)     14 / 22       
One reason i love AoK is the fact you HAVE to have a solid economy.

There are three kinds of people in this world...those who can count and those who can't
Indum
Banned
posted 04-13-05 11:52 AM EDT (US)     15 / 22       
Well, military vs economy aside, WHY IS an army general ordering the towns economy around 0_o?

And, more serious, I hope this time ES manages to make it feel as if you are commanding the birth of a colony rather than a bunch of feudal peasants.

jjgy
Skirmisher
posted 04-13-05 05:02 PM EDT (US)     16 / 22       
my advice to you, get out of the age seiries

There are three kinds of people in this world...those who can count and those who can't
Indum
Banned
posted 04-13-05 05:12 PM EDT (US)     17 / 22       
leave me alone jjgy, you nasty bully *sniff*

ok seriously, when did I say I didn't like the age series? ES are my favourite developers.

Gamer man
Skirmisher
posted 04-30-05 11:08 PM EDT (US)     18 / 22       
is there going to be enough to do and control in the economy to keep an economic minded player filled with things to do, and small micro things to reward economic fine tuning?

Moooers are remembered, chirpers never die, splashers are invincable

Billman
Skirmisher
posted 05-01-05 08:05 AM EDT (US)     19 / 22       
I wonder if the ES guys thought about/tried making sea trade routes in a similar style to the land based ones? I think they would work just as well - a few merchant ships speeding from port to port. The ports would be different to the regular docks that your nation's can build, much like the trading posts. It would also make the naval side of gameplay have more of an emphasis.
Perhaps as well as fighting for these said trading routes with ships, you could also harrass the enemy, if they have the possesion of them. In a similar style to R:TW, you could click on one of your ships to blockade the neutral port, thus stopping the enemy's flow of maritime wealth. Alternatively you could just go and destroy it, but that would just be silly, because you could capture the trade routes for your own use.

Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
harr
Skirmisher
posted 05-01-05 08:59 AM EDT (US)     20 / 22       
I think that just because the economic element is made to use less time means that it is any less important or requires any less skill.

Reducing the number of resources does take away something from the game, but it doesn't mean that the economy is less important, though it does make it easier for newbies to manage. The best players will still be the ones who manage their economy the best. It just means that if you wish you can spend more time on other parts of the game.

If the importance of the economy has been taken away I would be extremely disappointed, but I believe that the makers will do just as well as they have in the past and not just make it all about the military, but I think that removing complexity will not adversely affect the impact that economy has had in previous age games.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit strange, I'm not always too good at saying things well.

fhertlein
Skirmisher
posted 05-01-05 10:13 AM EDT (US)     21 / 22       
The more I learn about the Trade routes, the more I like them, because they provide exponential benefits. Consequently, a player must try to capture them if they do not want to be left in the dust.

I think the economy will be just as important in AOEIII as prior games, with the difference being the Home City can save your ass, as Fargo mentioned in the interview. The HC sent a bunch of wood and he HARVESTED it to build his buildings. I like the harvest idea also, because the player does not receive instant credit.

I believe building trade posts in indian villages is how a player gains access to the native units.

Midala87
Skirmisher
posted 05-01-05 01:32 PM EDT (US)     22 / 22       

Quote:

Well, military vs economy aside, WHY IS an army general ordering the towns economy around 0_o?

I dunno. Pehaps because we can. Or maybe we really are not an army general.


And, more serious, I hope this time ES manages to make it feel as if you are commanding the birth of a colony rather than a bunch of feudal peasants.

Quote:

is there going to be enough to do and control in the economy to keep an economic minded player filled with things to do, and small micro things to reward economic fine tuning?


[/QUOTE]

There is something for both you guys.
You both could be the same player (2+ people are player 1) One of you can worry about the eco and villies while the whoremonger err warmonger could command the Great French Legion. Just do not expect to win.

I do not remember if they had this feature in AoM but they did have in AoK. I hope they keep it. Perhaps they could add special features to it without changing the game just the way how shared civ will work. Maybe even being able to join another civ midgame. Provided the other player agrees.

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

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames