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.34 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Things you dislike about AoEIII
Bottom
Topic Subject:Things you dislike about AoEIII
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Beric01
Skirmisher
posted 05-09-08 05:39 PM EDT (US)         
While AoEIII is a great game, it is not perfect. What are some issues you have with the game?

Please, no flaming or anything of the sort. This can be constructive criticism.

Please note I only have Vanilla. Anyway, my list so far:

1) No advanced formations - this is something seriously lacking, and a downgrade from AoEII
2) A focus on "rushing", tactics, and speed, rather than strategy. The average game is over very quickly, and you'll almost never see someone back from the dead.
3) Combat annoyances (units slow down when attacked, your cavalry will charge pikeman without being ordered to, culverins will attack cavalry unless specifically ordered to attack cannon)
4) Favors toward experts (the more games you play, the more cards you get- talk about anti-noob). AoEII allowed you to choose any civ you wanted and play it to the full, from the beginning.
5) Ships are a small part of the game, and can pretty much be ignored in many game types. Ships were a HUGE part of this time period, and yet we get 3 classes of warships that can be eliminated by 3 cannon balls from a falc.
6) Economic issues (villagers still aren't smart from AoEII, sheep require too much micromanagement)
7) Incredibly stupid AI (some people don't play multiplayer, you know!) This is actually my biggest issue from the game. I even use the Draugur AI, but there's only so much an AI script can do.
8) An emphasis on graphics, rather than improving on the AoEII experience
9) A lack of game-start options. No more than 2 teams, no variable starting resources
AuthorReplies:
Medio
Skirmisher
(id: Mediolanus)
posted 05-10-08 04:17 PM EDT (US)     26 / 34       
I think the point of a discussion forum is that we actually discuss things. If everyone would just state his opinion this thread would be useless (which is why I dislike "the best/worst..." threads in general).
schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 05-10-08 04:49 PM EDT (US)     27 / 34       
In the best/worst threads there are also discussions.

Is it really bad we disagree with the OP? In general people disagree with him on most points, and agree on some. People tell that, and actually explain why they disagree, i really dont see the problem.
Well and some things are just clearly wrong.

btw:
you'll almost never see someone back from the dead.
In 1v1 not often, again in teamgames much more often. I believe it is 2 teamgames ago, i had one. We were basicly losing from the first battle, but in between we won some battles. But in general we were losing. After 15 minutes the base of my first ally was destroyed, after 30 minutes the base of the second ally was destroyed. The only thing which was keeping us alive was a schooner boom, and believe me, the opponents wished we also had opinion that warships were useless. They had couple of docks heavily protected with upgrades outposts, so we couldnt attack them. But we did have a complete naval blockade arround their docks to keep our fishing ships safe, and they tried to break through and came pretty close.
The only reason we managed to win was because we had 4 factories producing heavy artillery, they had trouble countering them. Especially because the cannons were between buildings behind a wall (a single non upgraded wall, but it just gave enough time every time they tried to break through somewhere to send reinforcements).
I was producing imperial halbs and skirms from 4 barracks, and with help of allies we were barely holding our last base. Since being dutch + fish boom = profit, i had many resources, and decided to make some barracks a bit outside our base, where our settler were chopping wood (if enemies had known that they would have killed them and finished the game). I made small army of halbs, send them right into their town, and they got killed. No surprise there, but it took them a large part of their army to get them. Giving my allies time to also reach imperial. Now they also started doing suicide attacks with heavy infantry into their base. The ottoman ally managed to destroy the enemies docks + outposts, so we could also attack them from their shores, rendering their walls useless. Large parts of their army had to counter this, and after a while our main armies were moving forward again.

But in general, a come back can only happen when the other team screwed something.


EDIT: barely ever have lag with 3v3s btw, if it happen it is someone with sucky comp or connection 95% of the time, the other 5% of the time eso is bugged (bit too much of coincidence when 3 out of 6 people randomly distributed over teams lag out and several others were half way dropping when their internet still worked fine).

"such a kind fellow!" ~ ķįŋğ_Ćħŗĩ_ĬĬ

Furby killer should be crowned leader of AOE forum ~ [SW_GD]Teutonic

[This message has been edited by schildpad (edited 05-10-2008 @ 04:51 PM).]

As_Saffah
Scenario Reviewer
posted 05-10-08 04:57 PM EDT (US)     28 / 34       
This should be answered in two parts, imo. First, this is, in the end a ground combat game. If you want an age of fighting sail game, there's a few choices out there, which will captures the intricacies of naval warfare of the period far better than this game. Second, as to the realism of the disparity between ground artillery and naval vessels, I'm afraid that's by and large accurate. Naval guns are at a severe disadvantage against comparable ground based artillery, until well after the period in which this game takes place.
Actually, just from fudging around in the Editor, it seems that it would only take a very small adjustment to the ship physics to improve pathing dramatically. And once you improve pathing, some of the ship lag (tho not all of it) goes away.

As for the role and advantage of naval power, you're partly right. Ship guns were weaker, less stable, and had inherently shorter range. Offshore support was only a reality later. (It should not be a Colonial age card IMHO both for game play and historical reasons). But naval protection from naval assault, and landing troops under escort, were both very important in colonial times. Fishing was one of the major economic activities in the colonies before cash crops had been identified and successfully cultivated on a large scale. Import and export of goods to and from colonies overseas ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED a versatile and well-maintained fleet of transport and fighting ships. In fact, even when colonies themselves were at peace, the waters surrounding them were constantly in dispute.
advanced formations
Advanced formations are perfectly fine for a game like this. When you can automate something to take the chore out of managing troops, why not do it? Why must it always come down to who can click faster? Having advanced formations and knowing when and which to use is IMO a better measurement of strategic skill than seeing who can click the most times in a 100 msec period.

Crunkatog on ESO
Bart331 balance suggestion: aztec: remove civ
Voltiguer: Ender, Sioux in 1.04 will be a top civ, no matter how many layers of Sioux goggles you put on
schildpad on Elephants: ...their mansabdar unit sucks so hard it looks like a black hole
Crunkatog on Steam.
dantheman14
Skirmisher
posted 05-10-08 05:09 PM EDT (US)     29 / 34       
the major thing i dislike in AoE3 is the fact that you cant have any more than 2 teams. Also(at least in single player) you have to be on a team. Thats kinda annoying too.
adamh43524
Skirmisher
posted 05-10-08 06:53 PM EDT (US)     30 / 34       
"I particularly love how artillery will prioritize hitting buildings while their accomanying forces are being attacked by enemy infantry"

lol its even better when they start attacking a wall you just blew through after youve advanced
LordKivlov
Royal Guard
posted 05-10-08 07:06 PM EDT (US)     31 / 34       
I think the point of a discussion forum is that we actually discuss things. If everyone would just state his opinion this thread would be useless (which is why I dislike "the best/worst..." threads in general).
They're fine if you have actual discussion, like why this card is better than that card, instead of just 'I LIKE THIS CARD SO I THINK ITS BEST IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG NENENERNENRN.'

Proud Citizen of Sovietcanuckistan
Medio
Skirmisher
(id: Mediolanus)
posted 05-11-08 03:23 AM EDT (US)     32 / 34       
Advanced formations are perfectly fine for a game like this. When you can automate something to take the chore out of managing troops, why not do it? Why must it always come down to who can click faster? Having advanced formations and knowing when and which to use is IMO a better measurement of strategic skill than seeing who can click the most times in a 100 msec period.
I think you need to see this from an ES point of view. You can implement advanced formations, things which are either mostly useless (like patrol, if it was in do you think many people above PR 25 would use it?) or easily done by the player (like flank), or you can choose to improve balance, what would you do?
Colonel_UGMO
Veteran Musketeer (Content Contributor)
posted 05-11-08 04:00 AM EDT (US)     33 / 34       
I dislike you

ESO NAME: UGMO
RANK: 1st Lieutenant
I AM USING: TAD
I AM PLAYING: The Aztecs, British and Russians
.oO James246: Well, you wouldn't be able to sigg any dumb things I say, because I don't say them. :P Oo.
Medio
Skirmisher
(id: Mediolanus)
posted 05-11-08 04:32 AM EDT (US)     34 / 34       
Thank you, my friend.
« 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