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.28 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Regarding native american impact on gameplay..
Topic Subject:Regarding native american impact on gameplay..
posted 09-10-05 00:04 AM EDT (US)         
Its pretty small.. I'm sure they are a nice bonus unit to have to fool around with but they don't impact gameplay that much.

Heres what I expected.. I was expecting the indians to acually be more like a neutral power in the map that you have to play diplomatic games with. The indian villages on the map are a joke.. its mostly for the eye candy. They arn't "real" villages.. they are really just mercenary camps to get cheap units off of. It would be cool if the size of their villages was scalable to the map size. It would also be cool if they reacted more like an indian village, so if you trespass their terrictory too much they might attack you or it might be harder to make diplomatic proposals to them.
I was hoping for some innovation to this degree.

The hero is also overrated.. most the time I forget to use him. Hes only useful when you get the knight upgrade.

Combat system is pretty much the same with any other rts game that included a "musket age".

Home city is not bad.. I like how you can get unique buildings like forts and factories... just need to add more unique stuff like that.

Of course theres the argument that its becuz tis a demo.. well I'll be waiting then.

I am eager to see how multiplayer turns out. Thats when every bit of the game is used to maximum potential.

**Oh yes... about combat.. ES clearly stated in an interview that combat in aoe3 will be like what AoK formations did for AoE.. WHICH WAS HUGE.. so I hope they know what they're talking about.** Its still a demo, so we shall see.

ok lets compare...

aoe to aok transition
-awsome formations
-improves graphics
-slightly better scaled buildings
-u can walk through farms! no mo farm walls!
-awsome variation in units
-houses varied each time u built a new 1
-better terrain elevations
-improves campaign editor
-buy/sell via markets OMG!
-many diverse cultures
-new victory goals
-extensive tech trees
-tons of cool options like rally points.. shift commmands
-castles are cool

aok to aoe3 transition
-new age.. doesn't really count
-indians EXTREMELY overrated
-trade routes
-home city not bad.. but overrated
-hero... OVERRATED

[This message has been edited by yangsta (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:45 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 00:30 AM EDT (US)     1 / 28       
everything is nice especially the naval play.

but i have to agree with him. the indians dont care if you build stuff on their territory. i thought you would have to carefully negotiate alliances with them. i mean whats the point of the French's bonus if they ally with you no matter what?

and the explorer is a bit lacking. i dont use him much after the 2nd age. hes only good after knighthood and peerage.

but everything else is great. especially the HC.

posted 09-10-05 01:39 AM EDT (US)     2 / 28       
ES said they tried to do a more elaborate system of negotiating with Native Americans, but it wasn't fun.
posted 09-10-05 01:44 AM EDT (US)     3 / 28       
I think its kind of nice. It gives you a little more unit variety and can be very good if you get up near pop cap. Nothing remarkable but it does add to the gameplay.
posted 09-10-05 01:48 AM EDT (US)     4 / 28       
I think that if you dont have to use the Indians to win a mission in the final version of the game then it was a waste. I found no use for them at all. As the guy above me said its gameplay... But its what I like to call "dumb Gameplay." Somthing you don't really need to play and win the missions.

[This message has been edited by Gothren (edited 09-10-2005 @ 01:50 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 01:50 AM EDT (US)     5 / 28       
eh.. even if it wasn't diplomatic.. i still wished they had more innovations with the native americans.. they currently are nothing more then cheap mercenaries.. which was NOT the case in reality during that period in time.

Sometimes.. breakthroughs in innovative realism creates awsome gameplay.

posted 09-10-05 01:50 AM EDT (US)     6 / 28       
i wont a game only using cheeorke rifle men i jsut overran the enemy and we think the french have cheapter trade posts
posted 09-10-05 01:54 AM EDT (US)     7 / 28       


ES said they tried to do a more elaborate system of negotiating with Native Americans, but it wasn't fun.

ES said formations weren't fun.
ES said negotiations weren't fun.
ES said attacking trains/trains killing units wasn't fun.

What the hell IS fun? You know what isn't fun? Sniping cougars and fighting tamed bears while saving Pirates who are stuck on rocks from wolves. This game is not NEARLY as innovative as I expected and even it's primary selling point, graphics, are subpar (at least in the Demo, to be fair I'll wait until the full version is out).

[This message has been edited by PTM (edited 09-10-2005 @ 01:55 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 01:56 AM EDT (US)     8 / 28       


ES said attacking trains/trains killing units wasn't fun.

Trains bulldozing units would be like rocks falling down from cliffs and crushign units. It just causes a random element that is totally uninvited in an RTS.
posted 09-10-05 01:56 AM EDT (US)     9 / 28       
well if the train kill wa sin effect in new england map i never would have won the game because i couldnt have got my army past the rail roads without being run over which is gay it ru9ns the game to have to train crush your entire army before you can respond, trains are so long you would ahve abotu a 10 sec interval to get passed and you cant get many men past in that amount of time, that was "tactical formations" they where to complex basicly it was a counters b b counters c c counters z s counters.... basicly it jsut stupid you';d have to be constantly formation switching (ps i would guess that the people complianing are the peopl who are going to love it jsut because)

[This message has been edited by Byzantine2793 (edited 09-10-2005 @ 01:59 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 01:59 AM EDT (US)     10 / 28       


Trains bulldozing units would be like rocks falling down from cliffs and crushign units. It just causes a random element that is totally uninvited in an RTS.


posted 09-10-05 02:00 AM EDT (US)     11 / 28       
the natives are not as fun as they could be. they could at least be more random or demand something in return for an alliance. like go rescue a missing villie or something. instead nothing.

its sure not fun just having an indian flavored barracks. to me anyways. they are cheaper but a lot weaker. although they dont take pop.

plus trains and boulders are not random since you would actually have to do something to get them or you get advance warning anyways. although i dont care about the train part. it would have been a bit disruptive for boulders though.

i still like the game over all though. the naval part is just really impressive. too bad we couldnt see more in the demo.

[This message has been edited by EliteNemesis (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:02 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 02:02 AM EDT (US)     12 / 28       
Ya i think its a better move to have "ghost" trains, other then that I agree with the rest of the points.
posted 09-10-05 02:11 AM EDT (US)     13 / 28       
To be honest ; the natives are RUBBISH.

If I was a real native American playing this game I would be really pi**** off at how useless they made my people.

I mean , they make no difference at all , EVEN the eye candy looses its appeal in a few minutes ......... after you relize why their cost is so cheap , they're rubbish.

Actually to say it better - It's probably better to just ignore them , if I wasted my time with natives I would have less time to spend managing more important things such as my own army , using my recources for my own troops and upgrades.

Unfortunately they seem like cheap $2 pieces of junk , that nobody will care much about and never use ; ........... unless they have the mind of a child and are entertained forever only looking at pretty polygons.

posted 09-10-05 02:13 AM EDT (US)     14 / 28       


"*jumps in forum AND thread at the same time to much shock and dismay*

Okay folks, my specs:
Athlon 64 2800+
Geforce 6800, pipes unlocked, clocked as fast as a GT
Etc. Etc.

Now for my review of the demo:



... oh, you want me to elaborate?
Most of the time, I felt like I was playing AoE 1 or 2, just in a different time period. There's really nothing special about it. At all.
The HC powers are dull as well. Oh yay, shipment of villagers....thanks?
Oh, musketeers now!...great.
And some people were telling me that it was a revolutionary feature.
The campaign just reminded me of why I don't play campaigns often.
There is really nothing special or new here, whatsoever.

And something that annoyed me was the lack of gathering buildings. That's a feature that shouldn't have been eliminated. I like my storage pits.

Combat can't even keep me interested.
Watching two riflemen shoot at each other for 30 minutes isn't my idea of a good time. I like quick efficient deaths (like in Battle for Middle Earth), not drawn out battles between a hussar and a villager.

Overall, it sucks.

The unit models are horribly low poly. And bad. Fortunately there's no motivation to zoom in that low anyway.
It looks like RoN. I'm sick of the RoN look in RTS games.
Let's get something original here.
Oh yeah, so they abused every single shader in existence.
Doesn't matter if the game still looks bad.

(*laughs maniacally that these people can't use the crappy computer excuse*)

I'm giving it 5/10 because of the pretty fire effects, and the buildings look nice.
Oooh, it's a 6/10 with bloom off, by the way.

Good dose of nostalgia.

So yeah, I might buy AoE3. After I've played through Rise and Fall a billion times, because that RTS is actually good.
And innovative.

Quote by Miccc

This is a lot how I feel about this game.. its solid, but its not as innovative as I invisioned it. The innovation betweem Aok and Aoe was a lot great then what I have seen in the demo.

I wouldn't give it as low a score a micc though.. i am a little more merciful lol.

[This message has been edited by yangsta (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:16 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 02:18 AM EDT (US)     15 / 28       
i thought natives were mini allies who gathered their own resources and attacked your enemies, on top of selling u their services. however, the lacrosse upgrade is cool.
posted 09-10-05 02:28 AM EDT (US)     16 / 28       
Well, if I were to review the game:

Gameplay: 5/10

There's latency at almost all times and the UI is terrible. Units do pretty much the same thing once they reach critical mass and the innovations promised through Native Americans and Trade Routes are completely pointless. Formations do not exist in any reasonable capacity any longer - those that you can use barely read as formations and make absolutely no difference. Cav is totally useless since it gets countered by pretty much all infantry types except for bowman. Treasure/Guardians/etc. are all boring and uninspired rip-offs from other equally forgettable games like Warcraft 3. The UI is terrible.

Graphics: 3/10

They physically hurt my eyes. I'm not even kidding. I have a 6800GT and an AMD Athlon64 FX-53 so don't tell me this is my computer's fault. It isn't. Ignoring the literal pain they induce, they aren't even that pretty. Units are almost completely indistinguishable and their models are so low poly it's laughable. The buttons employed by the UI are ugly and the touted water effects are barely noticeable. Contrast is so bad between units and setting that stationary yellow teamcolored units are all but invisible.

Replayability: 3/10

No desire to continue playing it at this time. I owned AoE since it was realeased as well as AoK and I played them extensively as well as other RTS like Starcraft and Dawn of War (although DoW is mostly for the mods).

Overall: 4/10

A let down. Unless the final version is leaps and bounds better than this I will not buy it. They'd need to overhall the NA system as well as reinstate formations and fix the abhorrent graphics to get me to pick this baby up come release time. I've been following this game since early 2003 (check my join date) and I must say I'm very disappointed.

For reference, I'd give Starcraft a 9/10, AoE 8/10, and AoK 8.5/10.

[This message has been edited by PTM (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:30 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 02:41 AM EDT (US)     17 / 28       
I absolutely agree with you ^ THANK YOU for your clear cut opinions and honesty.
Even your reference score for those 3 other games seems right.

You're very very brave to say these things on this site ; most idiots will just flame people for saying these things, > or sometimes the mods get angry and boot people out.

Maybe 5 years ago this would be a great game , but it lags behind for real creativity now. Everything is very obviously ripped off from other games that do a better job at it.


[This message has been edited by East_Friesian (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:41 AM).]

posted 09-10-05 02:45 AM EDT (US)     18 / 28       
I think they're too scared to be innovative.. they need to get some balls and punch the next step.
posted 09-10-05 02:49 AM EDT (US)     19 / 28       
ES has sayed they have done major changes to the natives after the demo - they are more powerful, but there is no reaserch in there villages - dunno if they cost more, ES said they would be more like mercs instead of your normal guys.
posted 09-10-05 02:55 AM EDT (US)     20 / 28       
also, they have COMPLETELY changed the UI since the release of the demo. Remeber, this is a DEMO!
posted 09-10-05 02:58 AM EDT (US)     21 / 28       
the demo argument again.. guys I'm telling you the reality.. the gameplay you experianced in the dmeo is almost exactly the same as the release. Bugs/interface are technical tweaks.
posted 09-10-05 03:55 AM EDT (US)     22 / 28       
shut up, why the hell are you just mindlessly critizing a game which i believe is good fun

'I think we agree, the past is over.' - George Bush, Half-Wit
'The atmosphere here is so tense that you could cut it with a cricket stump' - Murray Walker, Motor Racing Legend
'For Winford Park please take the previous junction' - Irish Road Sign
'My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was sixty. She's ninety-seven now, and we don't know where the hell she is.' - Ellen DeGeneres, Actor
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' - Mahatma Gandhi
posted 09-10-05 06:32 AM EDT (US)     23 / 28       
they should of made them a whole new civ. but besides that, ya they should be aggressive. so far its a disgrace to any indian.
posted 09-10-05 08:42 AM EDT (US)     24 / 28       
It is a Demo, that's just it!

Demos are never great, they show the game when it was at a halfway point.

They have flaws, technical errors, etc.

That is what all demos have.

At least I hope that this is the case with this demo too.

I wouldn't like to play a game in which the natives are just eye candy. Heck, why are they going to make them playable if all they are going to do is be eye candy.

I know the flaws and errors are definately fixed.

Well, I guess we'll just have to find out in 45 days.

posted 09-10-05 08:52 AM EDT (US)     25 / 28       
@while irishking so you want to murder indians?

It isnt a demo, its nothing more then a beta what they call a demo. Believe me if the game is finished they update the demo.

posted 09-10-05 10:18 AM EDT (US)     26 / 28       
well they better make the Natives better in the final release ; otherwise if they dont I doubt anybody would bother seriously using them.

Kind of a let down if you're playing French , I'm sure now the so called 'French bonus with natives' is actually a few speacial cards that the other countries dont get so you can ally with natives.

posted 09-10-05 10:46 AM EDT (US)     27 / 28       
For me:

Gameplay: 7/10

Native Americans are an interesting "boost"... but no more. The ability to make more of them, have them be more powerful, and have them defend their territory against "enemies" would be better, but it's no biggy. Trade routes are good, except that in New England they look retarded (trains dissapearing at the end? No thanks), and again their bonus isn't significant enough. Maps size is sad, assuming the demo is close to the full version. I feel I should take more points away because of this, but I can't bring myself to because the rest of it (versus itself and not my expectations or the hype) is so good. That mod over here is nice, though - I think I'll figure out how to do that and increase the size by 100-150%.

I don't have lag with the new modded maps, even when fielding roughly 250 units (ships, 100's of muskets, villagers, natives). Civ differences are great, civs themselves are fun to play. The Home City concept is awesome. Also, ES made a WONDERFUL decision to remove economy micromanaging (although military micro to compensate is somewhat lacking). I think I'll be able to play the game with people who don't play a lot and actually have a challenge.

Graphics: 8/10

Rather hard to tell infantry apart from themselves, I have to zoom in to be able to target those who pose a greater threat. In general, graphics are very good; however, ships move too fast (I see no motors on those things), and water in general looks a bit more like blue-textured terrain with a wiggle effect then actual water. Everything else is fine.

Music: 10/10

Excellent music, by far. It's a pity it doesn't play all the time.

Replayability: 7/10

With my HC maxed out, there's not much left for me to do, but still, assuming random maps are more random then the demo ones, and larger, then the game is very replayable. I hope there's no cap in the full version.

Overall: 8/10

Other then map size (I've complained about that enough), the game is in very good shape. Looks like it will be fun, and it also appears to be playable on mediocre computers, so LAN games with it is a possibility. Assuming ES changes map si... no... must not... complain... must learn to mod...!

Looking forward to AoE3 - big population cap > AoM
posted 09-10-05 12:15 PM EDT (US)     28 / 28       
I'll review it aswell, I have nothing better to do (both british and spanish hcs have reached max level).

Gameplay + Replayability 8/10

I found it very fun. HC is nice, though not as imortant as I would have expected. The natives were a nice boost, I don't care that they aren't vital, I don't need to use cavalry every game, but they are still a nice aspect of the game. I hate the treasures though, waste of time and too much of a luck factor. Also they aren't cheap weak units, they are quite strong. I'm not going to comment on all the aspects of the gameplay, it would take to long.

Graphics 7/10 (for my graphics settings, I'm sure full settings is better, but I can't get them, so it doesn't matter)

The graphics were much worse than I expected, but still very good. The destroyed building foundations were a bit ugly.

Sound 10/10

I can't find anything to fault the sound.

Overall 8/10

Based almost solely on the gameplay. This is a great game. When it comes out I'll see if it is the best game I've ever played, or merely disappointing (anything other than the best would be disappointing now).


Trade routes are good, except that in New England they look retarded (trains dissapearing at the end? No thanks), and again their bonus isn't significant enough.

I liked the trade routes (you're right, the trains need to be improved though). If you think the bonus isn't big enough try setting them to make the resource you need for something when you have all four. Getting the resources that quickly for an advance or something else expensive is scary.

[This message has been edited by harr (edited 09-10-2005 @ 12:20 PM).]

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

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames