AOE3 Forums

Tpiom:

Well, someone said that AoE was a free-for-all game and world war(s) had two sides, true... But in AoK I didn't know that Celts and Saracens existed at the same time, or allied... Or fought. Do the same thing here, the teams should be countries:

Germany = Best tanks (Tiger, Panther - Do i need to say more?)
Russia = less cost units (so many were killed during WW2, which means they have a lot of guys the sent into battle... That means, they are produced fast)
France = Strong economy (Well, I did see france as a "farm" country during WW2)
Britian = Best Airforce (...Battle of Britian, they won)
Japan = Best Navy (Pearl Harbor)
China = Strongest population (1/3 today are chinese)
USA = Best infantry (Well, first.. they got into from Normandy into Germany quick)
Italy = Strong loyalty (Which means they won't surrender easily)
Finland = Best scouts/or fastest infantry (skies)
Spain = Best technology (Couldn't find anything better)

Gameplay = Well, you start with a HQ and workers. You can build houses and such, like AoE and mine coal, wood, food and iron and such.. you know.. And then you go into battle with your armies, like Company of Heroes the soldiers should take cover and such, but... they are also given ranks (from 1-10), a low rank soldiers does surrender easily IF given chance, and a general nearby may increase your chance of success in the battles (by 15% at most). You can build wires, and so on..) At high level you can begin to produce air planes and drop bombs over the HQ, but then you can ALSO build bunkers (to protect certain units like the commander, if he dies you lose) and anti-air guns....

For defense against tanks you can build anti-tank towers, you must also be able to train boats (transport) and one important thing, make trains (by making railroads and such.. Great transport for troops)

What do you think?

Making a new AoE that's solely based on WWII would be a waste of time. They need to find a happy medium with late 19th century powers, the combatants of the world wars, and those on both sides of the cold war. My choices:

British Commonwealth (a mix of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and India)

China

France 

Germany

Italy 

Japan

USA

Russia/USSR

The Commonwealth and Japan would have a slower economy but a powerful military. China, Russia and the US would have a strong economy but weaker military (but with upgrade options later in the game). I forsee the US to have the role of the Dutch in AoEIII, with a coin-based economy. Germany, France, and Italy would be in the middle of the road. Earlier on, Germany would have a slight economic edge and France would have a slight military edge and the roles  reverse towards the middle of the game. Italy (like Spain in AoEIII) would start off strongly but finish slowly. 

An idea I thought of after discussing Canada- in AoEIII your explorer can build a new town center when you get to the fortress age. How about in AoEIV, you can build a new town center, but it can represent a nation in your civ's empire? Basically, say you're playing as the commonwealth and you have three town centers on the map, one could represent Britain, one Canada, one Australia, and so on. All three could be Britain, or all three Canada...it would be up to the player to decide which set of options he would want. This would be unique to the Commonwealth, unless ES can find a way to make it work for every civ. Still, I couldn't picture myself playing as Italy and thinking "yes, I'm gonna make Ethiopia as my new town center!" This could be an awesome feature that could try to capture the diversity of the British Commonwealth and the contributions that each nation played to the success of the Empire as a whole.

EDIT: New idea along the lines as above- once reaching a certain age, civs can add a satellite country to their empire. Like early on Germany could build a new town center and choose it to represent Austria, but in the next age they could choose between Austria, Finland, or Norway. In the later ages Russia could add Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia .China would get North Korea and Vietnam, and so on.

Hopefully the new engine can handle all of that, otherwise I'm back to the drawing board.
 

Emp. Rommel:

Plus, we all know where this is going. In greedy capitalist societies, companies milk everything for anything they can get from it. Heck, ES will eventually make a AGE of EMPIRES which is the future plus 2000 years until its more like starcraft. So a ww2 game is almost a garentee.

 

oh and Omglol if you don't mind my asking, are you american?

Im dutch
 

Edit :

some_army:

But the Spanish Civil war directly preceded WWII. So Spain would need to be included. The Spanish civil war of 1936 included aid by Hitler, Stalin, and the U.S, and was kind of the appetizer to WWII. Just Saying. Though they were neutral during both wars... People would complain if they weren't included.

Not really , i mean puttting a civ in that was neutral in both wars would prolly mean not including some other civ that was active during both world wars , and everybody would complain if their own country wouldnt be inlcuded anyway ,

Thats why they should look at some official death numbers or w/e to decide what civs to put in

Non of the age games are totally  accurate  as far as  history is concerned, why should this one be any different. As long as the main Civs are included who cares who else is added to the list of available Civs, it just makes the game more fun if you have more verity. Also a game is made to be fun not teach us history!!
 

Liberation:

Dude thats just Sick.

Finland = Best scouts/or fastest infantry (skies)

I think Finnish army is very well adapted with cold climates and also is able to fight much larger forces. They have good strategic thinking.

They weren't very rich, so they had to get along with a low budget, know what I mean?  

Gameplay = Well, you start with a HQ and workers. You can build houses and such, like AoE and mine coal, wood, food and iron and such.. you know.. And then you go into battle with your armies, like Company of Heroes the soldiers should take cover and such, but... they are also given ranks (from 1-10), a low rank soldiers does surrender easily IF given chance, and a general nearby may increase your chance of success in the battles (by 15% at most). You can build wires, and so on..) At high level you can begin to produce air planes and drop bombs over the HQ, but then you can ALSO build bunkers (to protect certain units like the commander, if he dies you lose) and anti-air guns....

For defense against tanks you can build anti-tank towers, you must also be able to train boats (transport) and one important thing, make trains (by making railroads and such.. Great transport for troops)

Yes, starting with a HQ sounds good. The number of starting workers would depend on the civ u use. For example, China could have 8 workers, whereas Finland might only have 4 or 5.

As to the resources; Iron would be collected from mines (cave type mines). Food- the beginning food could be hunted. with hunting knives, rifles maybe. Later on there could be factories which would produce food. Something like wood would also be necessary. There's wood everywhere so that's no problem.

Fighting: If u've seen the Halo Wars demo video, I think the way the human soldiers fight there could be used in AoE4 also. I also think that ranks sound cool, but what they would do is boost the soldiers somehow, like in LotR: Batlle for Middle-Earth. I don't really like the idea of soldiers surrendering. Actually I don't like it at all. Doesn't suit the Finnish army.

As one advances in ages, yes, new units will be added, like aeroplanes, tanks, counter-tank units, etc. etc. Sounds good.

I think bunkers need to be able to be built quite early in the game. Only they can be upgraded as you advance in age, like walls can be upgraded in AoE3.

This Commander dying -> lose-thing I disagree with, but not completely. That sounds very much like the regicide game play type from AoE2 and from TAD. In pure supremacy games, however, I don't think there should even be a commander, at least not one whose death would result in you losing the game.

Trains and stuff sound like trading routes from AoE3. Not a bad idea. Could be done the same way, actually.

omglol:

Thats why they should look at some official death numbers or w/e to decide what civs to put in

That doesn't exactly tell everything from the war(s) that were going o, even though Finland isn't on that list because they only suffered  about 25,000 casualties, they killed well over 150,000 Russians in the Winter War.

As a background for those who don't know, Finland fought two separate wars against USSR during the time period of 1939-1944. Germany helped Finland in the second one, Continuation War, but the Finnish never signed the Tripartite Pack, thus never actually being on the Axis alliance.

I caculated the total death tolls in Winter War and Continuation War, and came up with these:

Finland losses:

85,000 men dead

200,000 wounded 

4,000 captured

USSR losses:

 327,000 dead

650,000 wounded

190,000 hospitalized due to sickness 

70,000 captured 

All this while looking at the arsenal of both at the start of the Winter War:

 Finland arsenal in Winter War:

30 tanks

130 aircraft

USSR arsenal in Winter War:

6,500 tanks

3,800 aircraft 

From the northern countries, throughout history, Finland has always been the country to fight the wars, when for Sweden, when for Denmark...

In David Kirby's A Concise History of FINLAND the Finnish were referred to as: Pioneer Settlers. I think the name is quite matching.

If a northern country was to be included in AoE4, it would most definetely have to be Finland. 

 Edit: Finland's KD ratio: 80. Beat that, Counter-Strike players!