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.38 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » First Age Game I won´t buy
Bottom
Topic Subject:First Age Game I won´t buy
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
BrazilianRaider
Skirmisher
posted 09-10-05 00:10 AM EDT (US)         
Hi guys.
I´ve never posted anything here and i hope you won´t dismiss my opinions because of this. I´ve been a hardcore age fan since I got my first glance at AOE I and I must say I´m very disapointed at AOE III.
You all have the right to disagree here, and being this MY opinion I don´t have to be reminded that ES couldn´t care less to what one guy thinks and that I am not obligated to buy a game I don´t like. Yet, I must ask that before flaming me you read the whole post first and I thank you all who have enough patience to do it.

The main reason I say this is that ES got too excited in building wonderful environments that they forgot all about the gameplay that made the series so famous. After the first week of playing, most of us won´t notice the reflections, the detailed houses, the beatifully designed trees, we´ll be clicking on units so fast that some of us might even tone these features down. Of course this is great to atract buyers, but what´s the point if 3 months later most of them drop the game and never play it again? ES and Microsoft marketing guys should remember that graphics and innovations are great for getting a game the desired media attention, but what makes a great game is the fun it provides.
If the un-necessary graphics were toned down a little, maybe we could support larger pops, or even more detailed individual units. Let´s face it: Compared to some games out there AOE III units suck.
Another thing that bothers me is why ES still can´t make cavalry stump over guys. That was the whole point of having cavalry in an army and why cavalry was so effective. They didn´t stop in front of infantrymen and attacked them one by one, they ran over them, breaking their formation and causing havoc among the lines. I understand why this feature wasn´t in the other age games, but come on guys, if the technology nowadays lets us be more realistic than yesterday why not take advantage of this!? It´s like ES got stuck in time.
I would recommend everyone who disagrees with me to play Rome: Total War for a few hours.
Someone from ES already stated that different games have different goals and I even agree with him, but many features from Rome are innovative enough to change the face of Strategy games in the future. It doesn´t have that much detail on the environment, but the units are extremely well designed, the battles the most realistic I´ve seen in a game and I must say I haven´t been so addicted to a game since Age of Kings. The way units morale, formations and even the direction they face affect the outcome of battles is impecable!
This said, I can bet a thousand dollars that most of us played the other age games for the battles, not for building cities (except for those creative moments that all of us go through once in a while).
For those of you who, like me, are more interested in realistic historical battles, unfortunately I think it´s time to change franchises.

AuthorReplies:
beekay
Skirmisher
(id: black_knight_101)
posted 09-10-05 00:41 AM EDT (US)     1 / 38       
At first, I was going to say 'NOBODY CARES', but after reading, I agree. Has anyone here played Trash? Best game I've ever played. EVER. I've played all the Age games, RTW, Knights of Honor, Haegemonia, and so on, and this is the best game I've played. The graphics aren't stunning (they aren't lacking, either), but the GAMEPLAY... I would never get tired of Trash. I can say that with confidence. Although, I wouldn't get it if you don't have internet (yes, you're all accessing this through the phone). It was made for multi.

And all for the low low price of 20 dirty American dollars.

RTW is really good, but it has almost no replayability. Believe me, as you get better, the AI becomes more and more pitiful. In the lower echelons of skill, though, it's awesome.


sig
EugineWhint
Skirmisher
posted 09-10-05 00:46 AM EDT (US)     2 / 38       
Ahh, too bad for you... One less player to compete with one the ladder.
yangsta
Skirmisher
posted 09-10-05 00:58 AM EDT (US)     3 / 38       
acually he made very valid points.. this game has the technology to be truly innovative and push the next step forward in realism.. they just didn't do it. What makes this game fun is its graphics and physics engine.. that won't last.

Combat isn't any different then a hundred other rts games involving guns.

[This message has been edited by yangsta (edited 09-10-2005 @ 00:59 AM).]

Lord_Morningstar
Skirmisher
posted 09-10-05 01:00 AM EDT (US)     4 / 38       

Quote:

Another thing that bothers me is why ES still can´t make cavalry stump over guys. That was the whole point of having cavalry in an army and why cavalry was so effective. They didn´t stop in front of infantrymen and attacked them one by one, they ran over them, breaking their formation and causing havoc among the lines. I understand why this feature wasn´t in the other age games, but come on guys, if the technology nowadays lets us be more realistic than yesterday why not take advantage of this!? It´s like ES got stuck in time.

They didnt horses will not normally barge into solid objects (just like you or I). Rome: Total War has a cool cavalry system, but it goes a little overboard with the unit knocking effects.

Quote:

This said, I can bet a thousand dollars that most of us played the other age games for the battles, not for building cities (except for those creative moments that all of us go through once in a while).
For those of you who, like me, are more interested in realistic historical battles, unfortunately I think it´s time to change franchises.

I love RTW I think that its an innovative game and while it lacks polish in many areas it has a lot of potential. That being said, I dont expect the same experience from an Age game as I do from RTW. Age games have never been about realism they are highly stylized and abstracted. If youre after realistic battles, you should have changed franchises a long time ago.

All being said, I was a bit let down by the demo. It wasnt the ideas, which I found very interesting, but the execution that got me. For some reason, the game failed to engage me. I played along, but ultimately didnt care how everything turned out. Everything seemed too bright and cartoonish, the Home City thing, while a great idea, seemed to come across as being a bit fake and abstract in reality, and I found the campaign very uninteresting.

Of course, this is only the demo, so we cant judge too much yet. Also, we cant underestimate nostalgia.

Mokon
Skirmisher
posted 09-10-05 01:04 AM EDT (US)     5 / 38       
as one of the ES ppl mentioned in the past... that trample thing is unrealisitic...

of course their is a slight trample effect for cav in aoe3

now really to be honost if you dont like the game that is fine, just dont go posting how much u hate it on a fan site


Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • Farzin
    Banned
    posted 09-10-05 01:08 AM EDT (US)     6 / 38       
    well to be honest, i fell for and baught Battle for middle earth because of all the fancy stuff like living world map, music, unit emotion, but i got tired of it all after a very short time and the gameplay wasnt enough to hold my interest. This is way i thought AOE3 would go, but the demo grew on me after a while lol.
    beekay
    Skirmisher
    (id: black_knight_101)
    posted 09-10-05 01:08 AM EDT (US)     7 / 38       

    Quote:

    They didnt horses will not normally barge into solid objects (just like you or I). Rome: Total War has a cool cavalry system, but it goes a little overboard with the unit knocking effects.

    Uh, no.

    They really did do that. Their value was in shock.


    sig
    yangsta
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:10 AM EDT (US)     8 / 38       
    Yes what he said.. ^
    Asurias
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:13 AM EDT (US)     9 / 38       
    For those of you that are questioning cavalry

    Watch the first 25 mins of the movie "Gladiator". There you will see cavalry run THROUGH the line and wreak havoc. By going between the troops and attacking it creates a frenzy.

    Look at last years "Battle for Middle Earth" (game). Although a subpar RTS at best it did have a nice physics engine. And yes, their cavalry run right through infantry.

    It really did happen.


    RON name: Zetherin

    [This message has been edited by Asurias (edited 09-10-2005 @ 01:44 AM).]

    Lord_Morningstar
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:41 AM EDT (US)     10 / 38       
    Cavalry did run through lines and between soldiers, but they didnt crash straight into them like a bulldozer. Soldiers standing their ground shoulder-to-shoulder would generally be safe from being overrun by horse. You guys have been playing too many games and watching too many movies.

    Horses have good sense, and they wont risk injury unless they have to. They will shy away from sharp, pointy things, and wont voluntarily run into people.

    Think back to history, and try and think of a case where cavalry was able to break through a solid infantry line.

    As early as 507 Frankish axemen were able to see off Visigothic lancers. At Hastings in 1066 charge after charge by the Norman Knights failed to carry through the Saxon shield wall. The knights werent destroyed - four fifths of them survived the battle even after forty failed charges. Their horses simply wouldnt run into the Housecarls shields and axes. Medieval knights, despite their battlefield domination, were not able to overrun Swiss pikemen and halberdiers, nor Bohemian Hussities sheltering behind wagons and shields. Of course, if the infantry broke up or fled (which was quite often the case) they were cooked, but if they held their ground and their formation the Knights could only hope to ride up and lance or hack at them, not actually carry a charge home through them. Even when the charge did succeed, it didnt usually see men bowled over only cut down as they stood in terror or fled. At White Mountain in 1620 Hungarian cavalry could not break Austrian lines. At the Boyne in 1690, Jacobite cavalry could not clear off Dutch Blue Guards who held their ground. They could damage and break up blocks of poorly-armed matchlock infantry, but not disciplined soldiers who stood up to them. Look at the Peninsular war. Look at Vimeiro and how the French hussars could defeat breaking Spanish soldiers but not English regulars. Look at the stopped cavalry charges at Talavera. Most cavalry on cavalry charges never went home one side would stop, break or shy away before the horses hit. Look at Waterloo, and how the English Royal Guards could ride through DErlons breaking and battle-worn lines but no the more soldi ones further down the slope. Look at Neys charge and its failure. There are hundres of examples such as this from the earliest times to the First World War. Cavalry do not act like cars.

    Byzantine2793
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:44 AM EDT (US)     11 / 38       
    did you bother turnign on advssanced options and use trampel by any chance i mean really come on and stop with the as they're annoying, and your right just like with else, in relity they wont run some oen over by choice that how rome defeated hannible in carthage the last time, by creating collums of no men so the else simply walk through the holes no damange done, and cavarly as was said onyl are effective if they flee i mea would you chrage into a sword if you had a choice

    [This message has been edited by Byzantine2793 (edited 09-10-2005 @ 01:48 AM).]

    Asurias
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:48 AM EDT (US)     12 / 38       
    Morningstar: As this is an RTS Game I am more than welcomed to compare it to other RTS Games. As for your history all I have to say is - this is a game. We are discussing cavalry and how they perform IN GAME. In some game they try to be more realistic and run through the lines of infantry while others, like this game, treat them as regular units. In games like these it looks similar to "crashing" into them because there is no way else to illistrate it while keeping the game fun.

    This has nothing to do with anything that happened back in 507. This is gameplay.


    RON name: Zetherin

    [This message has been edited by Asurias (edited 09-10-2005 @ 01:52 AM).]

    Mokon
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:50 AM EDT (US)     13 / 38       
    dont believe everythign u see in the movies

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • Asurias
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:53 AM EDT (US)     14 / 38       
    Concerning movies: I do not believe everything I see in movies but seeing as I am not a historian - nor do I know much about cavalry, I have given an example of a movie I know that was made with some depth and research.

    RON name: Zetherin
    Lord_Morningstar
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:53 AM EDT (US)     15 / 38       

    Quoted from Asurias:

    This has nothing to do with anything that happened back in 507. This is gameplay.

    Thats not the sentiment behind the comments I was responding to:

    Quote:

    Another thing that bothers me is why ES still can´t make cavalry stump over guys. That was the whole point of having cavalry in an army and why cavalry was so effective. They didn´t stop in front of infantrymen and attacked them one by one, they ran over them, breaking their formation and causing havoc among the lines.

    Quote:

    Uh, no.

    They really did do that. Their value was in shock.

    Quote:

    Yes what he said.. ^

    Quote:

    It really did happen.

    I agree that cavalry which bowl over troops are cool in game, but Im merely responding to the claims that cavalry really did work like that in real life.

    Zowon
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 01:56 AM EDT (US)     16 / 38       
    Good Post. Respectable and I agree with you on some stuff but not enough to keep me from buying this game... Its still excellent.
    JohnOConnor
    Banned
    posted 09-10-05 01:57 AM EDT (US)     17 / 38       
    You spoke as a true AOE fan and I love you for that All my points sumarized into one
    Asurias
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 02:00 AM EDT (US)     18 / 38       
    With all information from cavalry I have received over the years whether it be the history channel, historically accurate (or at least close to) movies, books, etc. I have been made to believe cavalry DID go in between the lines - usually ambush - and wreak havoc.

    Going into more detail since they were on horseback - at least during the times of Rome, I would assume they would slash at the throat. Yes, spears and pikes would always ward them away and have the best of them if they got too close, which is why ambush tactics were more looked upon.

    Your arguement is that they did run in between infantry but they didn't run into them like cars.

    Noone ever said they did?


    RON name: Zetherin

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

    beekay
    Skirmisher
    (id: black_knight_101)
    posted 09-10-05 02:01 AM EDT (US)     19 / 38       
    Obviously cavalry couldn't overrun tightly-packed troops, but not many formations did that. Obviously they couldn't get through a shield wall (nowhere near enough momentum), and yes, in general, horses will shy away from things like pikes. But you implied that cavalry just stop in front of a line and start attacking.

    And trust me... cavalry did charge, since you don't seem to know. They knock over and trample as many as possible, which you can't seem to grasp.

    Quote:

    I agree that cavalry which bowl over troops are cool in game, but Im merely responding to the claims that cavalry really did work like that in real life.

    Try standing up when a horse is running over you.

    Yeah, I thought so.


    sig
    simontyler9
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 02:02 AM EDT (US)     20 / 38       
    I totally disagree with you!

    You have an opinion,yes, but I'm really getting sick of when people complain about it!!!

    It's a demo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Everyone is waiting for it and once it comes out you all act as though you've been cheated!

    If you don't like take it somewhere else!

    If you have a suggestion say it and ES will listen!


    My Heroes:
    Kirk Hammet
    Andrew Stockdale
    Dave Grohl
    Jimmy Page
    Asurias
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 02:04 AM EDT (US)     21 / 38       
    Bk: Morningstar is saying they won't trample the person BECAUSE of the pikes/weapon. They will be scared of the object.

    RON name: Zetherin

    [This message has been edited by Asurias (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:04 AM).]

    beekay
    Skirmisher
    (id: black_knight_101)
    posted 09-10-05 02:04 AM EDT (US)     22 / 38       

    Quote:

    If you have a suggestion say it and ES will listen!

    I think his point is to focus on gameplay instead of graphics.

    EDIT:

    Quote:

    Bk: Morningstar is saying they won't trample the person BECAUSE of the pikes/weapon. They will be scared of the object.

    Well, yeah, I said that in my previous post. Horses will shy away from sharp pointy things which cause pain.


    sig

    [This message has been edited by Bk 101 (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:06 AM).]

    Maveric_LOL
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 02:47 AM EDT (US)     23 / 38       
    cav stoped being ubber at the end of the middle ages. yes they will charge and will trample if given the opertunity, but the fact that pikes were so prevalant at the time, and the later advent of the bayonet and the square formation made cavalry much less effective against infantry in pitched battles if the infantry had a competent commander.

    Case in point, Napolean and the battle of the pyramids. 200 thousand Mameluke cav. They greatly out numbered the frech. Napolean made use of the square formation, his firepower and his artillery and won the battle. Breaking a square was not easy sure Lancers excelled in trying to do it, with their long lance but they were few and far between and even so were not all that successful at it. Most breaches of the square actually occured when a horse was pushed up against the lines by another horse behing and became impaled, this might push the first 2-3 lines in and break the square.

    Case Study:
    The Battle of Garcia Hernandez
    This action is known for being one of the few times that cavalry has managed to break a formed infantry square.

    The honour goes to the King's German Legion's General Bock, who set his 450 men on to three battalions of French infantry retreating after the battle of Salamanca.

    The four KGL squadrons charged uphill, broke the square and then proceeded to rout a column.
    The success in breaking a square at Garcia Hernandez came about when a dead horse crashed into the side of a square opening a hole in the bayonet hedge through which other riders were able to plunge through.

    Bock's men suffered 150 casualties while General Foy's shocked defenders lost 1400 men.

    Outside of that most cavalry was used to harras enemy troops on the move, chase down retreating enemy, attack artillery, engag other cavalry or battle field grooming.
    A charge from cav would force an infantry regiment into a defensive square to avoid being decimated if it was in the line formation. In doing so its forward firepower is grealy reduced and the opposing infantry now has a advantage in terms of muzzels.

    Additional info:

    The British had set ideas about attacking infantry and would try to time the charge so that the cavalry could spur the final assault just after the soldiers had fired their muskets.
    When moving against infantry squares the British would strike at the corners of the formation to lessen the number of muskets that could be brought to bear.
    The perfect time for such an attack was while the infantry were trying to move, or if it had been softened up by artillery.

    There were dozens of types of sabres used by cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars.

    Britain had two main styles, the 1796 pattern light-cavalry sabre and the straight-bladed 1796 heavy-cavalry sabre, but this did not stop a whole host of various weapons being used at the whim of the men who led their regiments.

    Unwieldy and poorly balanced, the 1796 patterns were used as hacking weapons and while they would cause terrible wounds the use of the edge of the blade rather than the point resulted in fewer killing strokes.

    French horsemen preferred to use the points of their swords and run the enemy through so there was a large disparity in casualties between the two styles. The French suffered more ghastly wounds, while the British more initial deaths.

    The main proponents of the lance - a 30-centimetre point on the end of a 240-centimetre shaft - were the Poles, Austrian Uhlans and Russian cossacks, whose fighters had used the weapons for centuries.

    Napoleon Bonaparte's famous lancers were excellent for pursuing fleeing infantry, or trying to break up squares by outreaching bayonets.

    Other cavalry, however, were seemingly not too worried by the longer reach as once past the razor-sharp blade of the lance the swordsman had the advantage.




    Brethren bound by justice. Souls who fear not death.
    Soldiers of good. Champions of Light.
    Together we stand forever. The Legion Of Light.
    ~The Legion Of Light~

    [This message has been edited by Maveric_LOL (edited 09-10-2005 @ 02:48 AM).]

    Lord_Morningstar
    Skirmisher
    posted 09-10-05 03:30 AM EDT (US)     24 / 38       

    Quoted from Asturias:

    Your arguement is that they did run in between infantry but they didn't run into them like cars.
    Noone ever said they did?

    People seemed to be suggesting that BFME portrayed cavalry realistically. That was my issue.

    Quoted from Bk 101:

    But you implied that cavalry just stop in front of a line and start attacking.

    For the record, I have argued that they would pass next to soldiers, allowing the rider to get a hit in, or shy away if there was no space.

    That being said, it was fairly common for lancers to ride up to infantry squares and start spearing the soldiers from a stationary position (lances outrange bayonets). Woe betide the British infantry battalion that was caught in square without ammunition by Polish lancers in the peninsular war.

    Quoted from Bk 101:

    And trust me... cavalry did charge, since you don't seem to know.

    Given the fact that I kept referring to cavalry charges in my post, I would take that as a given.

    Quoted from Bk 101:

    Try standing up when a horse is running over you.quote]

    Quite naturally, if youre on the ground with the horse on top of you, then youre in trouble and will probably find yourself unable to stand up .

    Bk: Morningstar is saying they won't trample the person BECAUSE of the pikes/weapon. They will be scared of the object.

    Yes, and because of the solid face that tightly-packed troops present.

    Anyway, you guys can prove me wrong fairly easily. Find me cases of cavalry charges bowling over and trampling static, close-knit infantry. Im not talking about cavalrymen passing through loose, ragged lines and cutting down the men. Im not talking about lancers riding along lines or up to them and spearing the infantry. Im not talking about cavalry riding down broken, marching or fleeing soldiers. Find me historical cases where cavalry have behaved like they do in BFME and (to a lesser extent) RTW.

    [This message has been edited by Lord_Morningstar (edited 09-10-2005 @ 03:33 AM).]

    beekay
    Skirmisher
    (id: black_knight_101)
    posted 09-10-05 03:34 AM EDT (US)     25 / 38       

    Quote:

    Find me cases of cavalry charges bowling over and trampling static, close-knit infantry.

    You aren't going to.

    Actually, I don't even know what we're arguing about, really. Enlighten me.


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

    Hop to:    

    Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames