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:
Compa_Mighty
Skirmisher
posted 07-01-04 08:16 PM EDT (US)     26 / 61       
Go here. Look for a post where I wrote some of the units that could be used.

Browse that AoE 3 forum for civ ideas, etc. Although I must warn you there are people who simply don't get the fact that AoE 3 is a sequel, and ask for stupid things as: "Make AoE 3 an AoK remake."


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!
Zappos
Skirmisher
posted 07-01-04 08:34 PM EDT (US)     27 / 61       
I do like some of your ideas, and I do see some nice possibilities with the Colonial Age. I think it's mostly the lack of military diversity that seems bad. I do see some good things though, like:

1. Naval Combat. This would be a good chance for ES to make naval fighting not suck. This is pretty much the height of Naval Fighting, so it seems appropriate.

2. Battlefield tatics. This is long overdue for the series, but I'd love to be able to give squad level commands, like the Calvary Charge or Bayonet push.

3. Economy. I'd reaaaaaally like to see some new thinking here. The old Age of Empire system just doesn't quite fit, and it would be a good chance to squeeze in some new ideas.

spongeman90
Skirmisher
posted 07-03-04 02:04 PM EDT (US)     28 / 61       
yeah...the naval combat is alright...but it can be improved A LOT! be cool if you could control individual units on it...maybe have them jump ship like pirates and raid enemy...but thats just a maybe...not that great of an idea, but just trying to stress that naval combat can be improved

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?
El Moppo
Skirmisher
(id: C J)
posted 07-03-04 02:51 PM EDT (US)     29 / 61       
Idea: Instead of using food to buy units, it could affect each unit's hitpoints. So one unit could have 50 hp, but with the added bonus of 10 food it now has 52 hp. If there was no food it would have only 50. How about that?

][- ][_ . ][\/][ (()) ][) ][) (())
Angelcynn > Niwe Middangeard ~ Ic
spongeman90
Skirmisher
posted 07-07-04 02:21 PM EDT (US)     30 / 61       
i like that idea...and since we are starting on the topic of food, i think the food supply should slowly drop throughout the game...cuz i mean, people have to eat more than once. i mean...kinda make it drop like the greeks favor increases...the more units you have, the slower the rate per villager the food goes down (i think thats how you could describe it...) or maybe like say have a day/night cycle and you lose so much per unit each day....you get what im saying i hope

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?
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 07-08-04 03:01 PM EDT (US)     31 / 61       
Instead of a food "cost" each unit would have a constant rate at which they take from your food stockpile.

Lowly, unupgraded infantry units, would take a constant 100 food per minute (lets just say), and a full on upgraded infantry unit would take 150 per minute. A cavalry unit would take 100+100 for the horse. Of course, these values would be different in an actual game, but there you go.

So, basically, we wouldn't be dealing with absolutes here, as far as resource stockpiles. We'd manage our income and expenditure rates.

SandyMan
VIP
(id: ES_Sandyman)
posted 07-09-04 02:56 PM EDT (US)     32 / 61       
Lack of diversity in unit types? Are you talking about the Renaissance, the 16-17th century, or the 19th century?

Probably the closest we've come to having few unit types was the period from the Civil War to early World War I, when fast-shooting rifled weapons basically wrecked cavalry's effectiveness. You had your basic infantry (of different qualities of course), elite infantry (some were better than others), cavalry (used only as scouts), machine guns, and a variety of artillery. So that's not too many.

But in the Renaissance & Napoleonic times there were a large number of troop types, who fought and acted very differently. In fact, this era probably had the MOST diversity of troop types within a given nation's armed forces that had been seen since before ancient Roman times.

Consider - in medieval times, the English army was basically composed of knights, a rabble of footmen, longbowmen, and (mostly Welsh) swordsmen. That, plus some siege engines. That's not much. Sure the medieval era had a huge diversity of soldiery, but not within the same army! For instance, the Magyars had horse archers & light cavalry, types which the English army lacked - but that's pretty much all the Magyars had. So the English had four types of soldiers, and the Magyars had two, the Arabs had about four, and so forth.

Now in the Napoleonic wars, the English army fielded heavy dragoons, light dragoons, hussars, light infantry, line infantry, grenadiers, riflemen, and a half-dozen or more types of artillery. That's six types, just for them and not counting the variety of artillery, which was much more common in battle than siege weapons like catapults or rams. And the English army was one of the least diverse armies of the war. They didn't even have lancers or cuirassiers.

Then in the 19th century, diversity drops again as I mentioned above - pretty much you only have infantry, scout cavalry, and some artillery weapons.

Of course, nowadays we have evolved back into a state where we have a huge variety of soldiery again. The US alone has 13 distinctly different types of rifle-armed infantry, and our army is disproportionately small compared to that of many nations.

GLORYOFSPARTA
Seraph (in absentia)
posted 07-09-04 03:15 PM EDT (US)     33 / 61       
OT: Our ES god has paid us a visit! *Faints*

GLORYOFSPARTA | RTWH and M2TWH Site Director, AoMH Game Information Admin, HeavenGames LLC
AoMH | RTWH | M2TWH | Ancient Greek Festival - 3rd to 4th of June in Watford, UK, 2006.
"Whoever obeys the gods, to him they particularly listen." - Homer
"GoS OWNS for being female and liking The Simpsons and Rammstein." - Crazed Ewok
S p l a t
Skirmisher
posted 07-09-04 06:56 PM EDT (US)     34 / 61       
Instead of a food "cost" each unit would have a constant rate at which they take from your food stockpile.
Lowly, unupgraded infantry units, would take a constant 100 food per minute (lets just say), and a full on upgraded infantry unit would take 150 per minute. A cavalry unit would take 100+100 for the horse. Of course, these values would be different in an actual game, but there you go.

So, basically, we wouldn't be dealing with absolutes here, as far as resource stockpiles. We'd manage our income and expenditure rates.

Thats an awesome idea! It sounds really cool to us players who can manage our recources like that, but take it at the viewpoint of someone brand new to the game. He would be overwhelmed at how much pre-planning it would take, it would scare him away! ES does like to please its fans, but its not out here solely to make a game that the community likes, its out there to make some moolah!

Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 07-09-04 08:32 PM EDT (US)     35 / 61       
I have faith in my fellow gamers that they could "figure it out." LOL It's not really that difficult a concept. You'd just have a column that shows present income rate, and a column showing expenditures. When the difference hits 0, then oops, can't make any more troops! When it goes negative (for instance, when your farms are raided and your food income rate drops) your troops begin to loose HPs slowly and steadily until some either die in battle, die of starvation, or your farms are retaken and income goes back up and the difference goes back above 0.
Compa_Mighty
Skirmisher
posted 07-09-04 09:58 PM EDT (US)     36 / 61       
Great to see post Mr. Petersen. I'm also glad you cleared that up, since many people didn't get it.

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!
ElfTheHunter
Skirmisher
posted 07-09-04 11:36 PM EDT (US)     37 / 61       

Quote:

I have faith in my fellow gamers that they could "figure it out." LOL It's not really that difficult a concept. You'd just have a column that shows present income rate, and a column showing expenditures. When the difference hits 0, then oops, can't make any more troops! When it goes negative (for instance, when your farms are raided and your food income rate drops) your troops begin to loose HPs slowly and steadily until some either die in battle, die of starvation, or your farms are retaken and income goes back up and the difference goes back above 0.

While not exactly like that, the concept has been done of food being ingested in other RTS games... one comes to mind called Celtic Kings. IMO at least it was horrible, too much micromanagement with too much of a risk. Basically players begin to fear losing units due to low food so much they abandon the control of the military and focus too much on economy, which destroys the purpose of the game.

I'm sure it can be done, but the fact is it's a scary and risky concept which if not implemented right can totally destroy a game. And by implemented right, I mean, implemented in a method that everyone in content with... not that your or I are.

I think ES would have trouble getting that into the game... but if they are willing and do it right, then all the better.

---------------------

About troop types, that era is indeed the most varied era of troop types (other than modern). Hey, it's the clashing of metal and gunpowder. But more interesting than that (to me) is the aspect of naval warfare. Something that was promised for AoM (somewhat) but never shipped with the game (no blame on ES, I know they considered it and prolly was not their choice to drop it, they were forced to). But if AoE3 is set in this era then naval warfare is far more likely to make the cut of areas to focus in.

*Wonders if slavery would make an appearance... LOL, I'm certain it won't, or at least not an accurate apperance*

Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 01:16 AM EDT (US)     38 / 61       
Slavery has existed for thousands of years and still goes on today. So, if ES hasn't included it in one of their games yet, then they aren't in AOE3. LOL
GaryPayton
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 01:45 AM EDT (US)     39 / 61       
I think the next ES game should be about who can make the biggest lie and go to war like the current American Government did to attack Iraq without the United Nations approval.

I'm reading the book "BUSH AT WAR" written by the same journalist that brougt up the Water Gate scandal some years ago and so far it's pretty clear to me that the CIA just "created" lies so that the Bush Administration could justify the war against Iraq which was already decided after Sept 11th. Not surprising to see Tenet resigning from the CIA command some days ago...

[This message has been edited by GaryPayton (edited 07-10-2004 @ 04:56 AM).]

Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 03:01 AM EDT (US)     40 / 61       
That's pretty off topic Gary. Please post that sort of thing in the appropriate forum.
GaryPayton
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 04:05 AM EDT (US)     41 / 61       

Quote:

"That's pretty off topic Gary. Please post that sort of thing in the appropriate forum."

Don't think it's so off-topic since if you are gonna make a game with some of todays "weapons" diplomacy plays an important role in how things work today. If ES will make a game with more of a modern approach I think this whole Iraq issue shows how diplomacy is important nowadays and could be somehow transformed into a game feature for their future games.

The American diplomacy just created a lie (by giving false evidences that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) and based on that USA destroyed Iraq.

Actually the Civilization series already had this "diplomacy" feature since the first game and I really enjoyed it. It adds a different perspective from the tradional economy-military standards we can find in all strategy games. As far as I remember in Civ if you lied and betrayed some other civilization your reputation would go down and as a consequence every other civilization would be more agressive against you.

[This message has been edited by GaryPayton (edited 07-10-2004 @ 05:03 AM).]

ElfTheHunter
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 04:22 AM EDT (US)     42 / 61       
I'm with Mythos, that was off-topic... you were not talking about the feature but about the real-life event.

In your first post that is.

[This message has been edited by ElfTheHunter (edited 07-10-2004 @ 04:22 AM).]

Zappos
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 09:30 AM EDT (US)     43 / 61       
Yes, please keep real-world politics out of this discussion.

Ok, Sandyman you got me. I guess I gotta brush up on my 1400-1600 military history.

WhoAskedU
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 10:11 AM EDT (US)     44 / 61       
damn ignoramus

At my signal unleash HELL.
God Bless America, Land of the Free!!!
•••winner of "2002 AoM Forum's Coolest Name Award"•••
•••••••Another Fabulous Post by WhoAskedU!!•••••••
People just complain about other people's Signatures because
they aren't smart enough to make their own.
phantom_rider
Skirmisher
(id: phantom_rider2)
posted 07-10-04 01:35 PM EDT (US)     45 / 61       
Some people live off that Anti-US stuff.

Anyway, I hear that EE2 is going to have a very powerful diplomacy menu, and while I'm not sure how everything is being made for the next age game, maybe some ideas can be pulled from that.

It sounds very innovative and cool, with you being able to trade basically anything; units, war plans, resources, territories, etc...

Zappos
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 03:04 PM EDT (US)     46 / 61       
EE2?

I wonder how much longer until we get an announcement for ES's next game...

The Great Briton
Skirmisher
posted 07-10-04 04:53 PM EDT (US)     47 / 61       
Empire Earth 2 is going to be awesome. Head over to EE Heaven and take a look at the screenshots. I'm The Great Briton by the way, I don't have AoM but I've been lurking in the shadows of AoMH for a while..

TGB
THE GREAT
BRITON

EPIC DESIGNS | WOAD CREATIONS


[This message has been edited by The Great Briton (edited 07-10-2004 @ 04:54 PM).]

Von Manstein
Banned
posted 07-10-04 05:59 PM EDT (US)     48 / 61       
Me too. I just logged in recently to meet Queenie if she even comes here anymore.
EaZy
Skirmisher
(id: EazY_Ben)
posted 07-10-04 06:02 PM EDT (US)     49 / 61       
Sorry, i haven't read the whole convo, but id liek to just say a few things:
I think an AOEIII would be awesome. I think it could be set in an even later date or an earlier date...im not sure.
An AOM2 would also kick ass, but im not sure when that would be set...
Lord_Guilherme
Skirmisher
posted 07-11-04 02:48 AM EDT (US)     50 / 61       
I am with Gary. What he said was not off-topic. I think his Idea is great. A more complex way of diplomacy. The age series lacked in this. The diplomacy consisted in Ally, Neutral or Enemy. There is no espionage, no betrayal, no bribes, no lies. The age series is based in the real world and what happened in Iraq could be used in AoE III. Declaring a war to a country using a false proof is quite interesting to put in a RTS game. The age series are way too innocent. Its just build an army and smash your enemy. It would be better if we had reputation, people happiness, a more complex diplomacy and some other things that could aproximate AoE world to the real world.
« 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