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:
GFGJ
Skirmisher
posted 06-09-04 03:55 PM EDT (US)     1 / 61       
1. don't make enters in the middle of your sentences.
2. Age of enlightenment, age of exploration, or age of colonization wouild be good ideas i think, anything covering the area from about 1500-1700. but i still like AoL more.

Winner of May '04 "best location" award.
I'm an NDA teacher!
Winner of the original 33987-post set of AoMH's Last Post Wins!
Just a few of my insanely productive threads!
spongeman90
Skirmisher
posted 06-11-04 01:41 PM EDT (US)     2 / 61       
are there suppose to be a total of 4 age of empires games? well...

anways, theres pretty much gonna have to be guns in the new ones, since if im not mistaking the spanish in aoe 2 had em and its suppose to be a later time period


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?
jason_argonaut
Skirmisher
posted 06-13-04 10:24 PM EDT (US)     3 / 61       
i dont want to have guns because a unit would probably die in one shot

My ESO name is PocketPicker
spongeman90
Skirmisher
posted 06-15-04 06:49 PM EDT (US)     4 / 61       
yeah but they'll have to add them if they going to make it accurate like aok and tc

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?
King Of The Hill
Banned
posted 06-16-04 03:04 AM EDT (US)     5 / 61       
One shot?

I don't think so... please consider other aspect like 'accuracy' + 'penetrate' + 'concentration' etc Vs 'dodge' + 'armour class' + 'formation' etc etc etc...

Realism in fact is easier to understand than a D&D or H&S for instance.

Well of course if you stand naked with shopping bags around you... can't move... panic... BANG! <bup!> ...<hello is that you god?!!!>

...

Yohan Hoogland
Skirmisher
posted 06-16-04 09:58 AM EDT (US)     6 / 61       
You truely are somthing KotH.

The Wait Is Over

DoJo Clan Site
junialum
Skirmisher
posted 06-18-04 11:49 PM EDT (US)     7 / 61       
The point about gunpowder warfare in other games is that the soldiers simply stand and shoot at each other, not even attempting to dodge. That's way unrealistic.
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 06-20-04 09:01 PM EDT (US)     8 / 61       
Well, uh, in the timeframe we are talking about that's what they did - stand there.
King Of The Hill
Banned
posted 06-21-04 05:50 AM EDT (US)     9 / 61       
To make "one shot" work firstly you must have thousands of army like what we found in Total War, then again you have to sacrifice other magnificent mechanics in RTS to accommodate such scale... which is can be quiet dull.

One shot for let say 1000 armies

Instead we do this...

One shot add magnifier into -50% meaning instead of "one" now it become "two" shots. Thus number of army reduced into half also i.e 500. Further down the scale into another -50% number of army are down into 250 (pop cap) per player.

In another words, one shot becomes "three to four" shots to kill someone with a muskat.

Either way, muskats are known to be inaccurate also with low range and long cooling off period.

Just a thought.

...

[This message has been edited by King Of The Hill (edited 06-21-2004 @ 05:57 AM).]

centaur22
Skirmisher
posted 06-21-04 07:54 PM EDT (US)     10 / 61       
I sure do hope that they don't make a game like Rise of Nations where you make "troops" of units. That takes all the effect out of good units.
King Of The Hill
Banned
posted 06-22-04 03:09 AM EDT (US)     11 / 61       
No no no no...!

I'm trying to say, in simpliest form :

""How we manipulate physics involved to maintain gameplay while being realistic at the same time""

...

The realsim is you may kill a unit with 1 shot only.

The physics is you may add other corresponding modifier to "randomized" when and how deep the pellet/bullet can be. Also to-hit factor etc.

The gameplay is to make sure each player has maximum of 250 units at one time to maintain the multiplayer integrity.

...

spongeman90
Skirmisher
posted 06-27-04 10:16 PM EDT (US)     12 / 61       
well...sorry if this isnt what you talking about...but 1 shot doesnt kill someone unless, usually, it hits them in the heart and/or lungs, since one cant live without the other, or they get their head blown up...i mean, a guy live with a shot to the privates, may not be a happy life, but he can still live...and a shot to the arm not going to kill a guy, just his arm. so if es does add guns (which they should) they will have to add stuff to affect the speed of the ammo and which way it goes and crap like that. plus...when you talking about guns, its sounds to me like your talking about modern guns. guns were not nearly as powerful in the 1500s-1800s as they are now. remember to take in consideration the time the game takes place. their guns probably just fired what ever they could fit in the barrel (like the spanish guns) anyways...just think about crap like that

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?
Temur
HG Alumnus
(id: Gaiseric)
posted 06-28-04 02:25 AM EDT (US)     13 / 61       

Quote:

i dont want to have guns because a unit would probably die in one shot

There are guns in AOK. What do you think hand cannoners hold?


"War does not decide who is right... only who is left." -Bertrand Russell
GFGJ
Skirmisher
posted 06-28-04 02:45 AM EDT (US)     14 / 61       
also you have to factor in how innacurate they were. if you have 1 17th century musketeer against another, theres a very low chance that theyll hit each other for a while. you need to be against large clumps of soldiers for a musket to be effective, which is why cavalry were still somewhat effective.

Winner of May '04 "best location" award.
I'm an NDA teacher!
Winner of the original 33987-post set of AoMH's Last Post Wins!
Just a few of my insanely productive threads!
THE_champion95
Skirmisher
posted 06-28-04 08:38 AM EDT (US)     15 / 61       
i think its likely the game will be called:
Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery

supporter of Crystal Palace Football club
Leader of The VnX clan!


ESO Name: Rulezzz
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 06-30-04 03:53 AM EDT (US)     16 / 61       
Guys, guns in the 1800s caused MORE damage to targets than those today. Caliber of the handheld weapons in those days was huge. Imagine getting hit by a musket ball the size of a marble. The wounds were DEVESTATING because of the shape of the round and how much MASS it punched. A missle shaped round like those used today causes much less "collateral" damage to the victim because of the smaller entry and exit wound. Modern rounds usually cause clean wounds. In and out. Whereas a lot of the time musket balls would radically change direction and fragment once hitting flesh, causing a lot of collateral damage and usually either a rather large exit wound, or implanted itself within the victim's body. Interesting to ponder, hmm?
El Moppo
Skirmisher
(id: C J)
posted 06-30-04 12:44 PM EDT (US)     17 / 61       
It's spelt 'musket'.

][- ][_ . ][\/][ (()) ][) ][) (())
Angelcynn > Niwe Middangeard ~ Ic
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 06-30-04 01:32 PM EDT (US)     18 / 61       
El Moppo
Skirmisher
(id: C J)
posted 06-30-04 03:13 PM EDT (US)     19 / 61       
I was closer.

][- ][_ . ][\/][ (()) ][) ][) (())
Angelcynn > Niwe Middangeard ~ Ic
Compa_Mighty
Skirmisher
posted 06-30-04 10:08 PM EDT (US)     20 / 61       
While you are right about the caliber of the "guns" you're not mentioning the most imporatant factors why guns weren't that effective: loading times and accuracy.

They were so slow to reload and so inaccurate that cavalry was able to reach infantry formations and absolutely disrupt them.


Co-Author of the Aztec Civilization Outline for AoM.
Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro to do The Hobbit!
Chichén Itzá is one of the New 7 Wonders of the World!
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 07-01-04 11:13 AM EDT (US)     21 / 61       
That's very true, but they were talking about why a musket shot would kill someone or not. One should also take into account that although modern rifles and handheld weaponry is MUCH more accurate, those accuracy tests are done on a shooting range - in real combat situations accuracy of modern handhelds drops considerably. Plus, in 19th century warfare, muskets were lined up in a wall of death, then fired. You might not hit the guy YOU were aiming at, but he had a good chance of getting hit by the guy firing next you you, and so on. Muskets didn't NEED to be accurate, because the tactics were designed to make that a mute point.

You do have a good point about cavalry riding down formations of infantry. That's why I hope ES takes into account the loading times and such of weaponry - make them deadly, but slow firing.

Compa_Mighty
Skirmisher
posted 07-01-04 05:16 PM EDT (US)     22 / 61       
Oh well, you're right, guess I didn't read the whole arguement, just your post.

I agree with you there, musket fire should be deadly, but not kill a unit in one shot. Perhaps two or three in the later ages. That seems fair enough.


Co-Author of the Aztec Civilization Outline for AoM.
Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro to do The Hobbit!
Chichén Itzá is one of the New 7 Wonders of the World!
SandyMan
VIP
(id: ES_Sandyman)
posted 07-01-04 06:30 PM EDT (US)     23 / 61       
This is kind of silly. For some reason (RPGs, perhaps?) people have the idea that arrows and melee weapons "accumulate" damage until you're killed. It's simply not true. One solid blow from a lance or a mace and you are out of action just as surely as if you'd been shot. Not long ago they unearthed a mass grave of the defeated German army from the battle of Grunwald (1410). They discovered 60-70% of the skeletons had one or both legs chopped off. (Many of the opposing Polish & Lithuanian infantry were armed with axes.) You can talk all you want about bullets being lethal, but if your leg gets hacked off, the fight's over as far as you're concerned. The same goes if you're hit somewhere by a crossbow bolt.

Of course in RTS games we pretend that everyone fights to the death, but in reality most wounded men are just as much out of the fight as one killed.

For that matter, an 18th century musket ball hitting you in the leg or arm puts you out of the fight too. A Brown Bess musket fired a spherical lead pellet that was an inch (2.5 cm) in diameter! That's one heck of a big hole! You don't shrug it off and keep fighting, even if the wound is "only" in your leg.

One final note - during Napoleonic times, the average "hit rate" for muskets was about one hit per 250-400 shots. The best "hit rate" ever recorded was at the battle of Malplaquet, when one Irish regiment got 1 hit out of 15 shots. Compare these "slow, inaccurate muskets" to modern weapons which typically have hit rates of 1 per 5,000-20,000 shots! The old-timers actually got proportionally MORE hits than modern combat!

Zappos
Skirmisher
posted 07-01-04 06:59 PM EDT (US)     24 / 61       
Well sure, but modern soldiers don't exactly line up in front of each other, either.

What mostly concerns me about an "Age of Discovery" game is unit variety. I mean, you have musket guys, and Calvary, and cannons......and.....pirates....and...uhhh..primitives?

I guess you could try and establish differences between British Redcoats and Hussien Mercs, but, maybe it's just me.(shrug)

Cheesewiz
HG Alumnus
posted 07-01-04 07:22 PM EDT (US)     25 / 61       
I made a list a long time ago, of what I thought some good units would be, as well as the Civs. I figured it would be called "Age of Discovery", and I thought there would be an expansion called "The Colonial Expansion" Basically your civs were people like the Spanish, English, Holy Roman Empire, The Russians, Chinease, Ottomen, ect. And the expansion would be likely to have India, American, American Natives(only a maybe there, but that would be really awesome), ect.


The unit groups were your "primative" sword unit lines, your gun lines, and your cavelry lines. And eventually you could whip out some cannons


Unique units like the Patriot, the Yeomen, the Jassionary, and things like that. I have faith in ES that they will put out an awesome game similar to what I desribed by 2007 :P


Ex-Seraph Cheesewiz - Former WICH Webmaster, AOE3H Webmaster, & RTWH Staff, HeavenGames LLC
World_in_Conflict_Heaven || Age_of_Empires_III_Heaven || Support_HeavenGames || The_Playpen || Do_The_Right_Thing
« 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