View Full Version : MTW vs. Age of Empires
I looked at AOE when it first came out (never played it) and I came to the very quick conclusion that it was a game that basically used historical names and a historical time period but had nothing else to do with realism.
Was I right? If so, how many other things about AOE make it pale in comparison to MTW? Can someone please list them? I would like to go into some of the AOE and AOKings forums and alert people to MTW and how much better it is than those two games. Please help me to help others. Thank you.
AoE is a great game that has, indeed, a light historical 'coating' but no strategy part. Simple reason : it's about the ebb and flow of skirmishes, with very a large part of ressource producing/gathering done at the same time.
Not included in AoE but paramount to MTW :
- large size of units / formation
- startegic map and agents and production in turn by turn
- sense of timing (MTW = battle with start and finish, AoE constant skirmishes and rushes)
comparable
- rock and scisor system between units
The SP in AOK is average and the MP superb, and the contrary goes for MTW.
One comparison : One 'historical campaign' of AoE is Jeanne d'Arc, and pretictably enough she comes with a couple of horses and 10 or so men of arms. It's a serie of little scenarii, very entertaining, but that will give absolutely no sense of the historical battles.
Overall, I'm not sure AOK 'pale in comparison' with MTW because they are 2 completely different games, and the respective followers might be very bored with the other ones game. I prefer MTW, by far, but understand it's not for all gamers.
Having played both extensively, I can say that MTW is a much better SP game. AOE and AOK (age of kings) are better MP games. But they are very different. AOE is about gathering resources so that you can build military and usually battles are between relatively few units, where as MTW most battles are between many troops. Also, MTW provides the ability to use tactics during the battle while AOE is about pumping as many units as possible into the fray and letting the fight go as it will. Both are excellent games but MTW is more sedate because of the turn-based strategic portion while AOE is fully real time.
ShadeFlanders
10-29-2002, 23:39
AoE (Age of Emptiness) is all about rushing: the game almost forces you to rush and that's something I absolutely detest. MTW gives you all the time you need to build and plot strategies while quick thinking is needed on the battlefield. Much, much better IMHO.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of Clan Shades (http://www.shadesmtw.com) and the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
---------------------
the bum previously known as Count of Flanders
AoK is a fine example of an RTS in the classic Dune2 form. Real time boom and rush. Tactical discussions concern themselves with time. i.e. How long it takes to get to the next age or how long it takes to build 50 what evers. Do it faster than your opponent (AI or human), and you win. That's it. The troops are robots, fearless and indefatigable. It does have a nice random map generator .
It has been surpassed, IMO, by Cossacks.
------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO
Soapyfrog
10-30-2002, 01:24
AoE is a RTS click-fest... management of your resources and economy are significantly more important than your tactical ability... Typically battles involve large concentrated globs of ranged units duking it out, the looser being annihilated totally.
Fun game, but so completely different from MTW that I am not even sure I would try to convert a fan of AoE to MTW...
It's like trying to convince a Doom fanatic to play X-com...
Dionysus9
10-30-2002, 02:40
Resource collection and management is for friggin' BEAN COUNTERS and accountants.
I want tactical battlefield situations.
As such AOE and its progeny bore me to DEATH. For god sake, mine the iron. Do I have to go down to the mine and haul it out myself? WTF.
I've gotta sit there and make sure Og doesn't get eaten by a wolf while he is picking berries. WTF point is that? Age of Kings? Give me a break. AGE OF BOREDOM more like.
MTW is vastly superior.
Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
Resource collection and management is for friggin' BEAN COUNTERS and accountants.
I want tactical battlefield situations.
As such AOE and its progeny bore me to DEATH. For god sake, mine the iron. Do I have to go down to the mine and haul it out myself? WTF.
I've gotta sit there and make sure Og doesn't get eaten by a wolf while he is picking berries. WTF point is that? Age of Kings? Give me a break. AGE OF BOREDOM more like.
MTW is vastly superior.
[/QUOTE]
LOL!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Funny you should say this because after looking the game over, this was my conclusion as well. Why the hell should I be concerned about a stupid farmer tilling the land? Talk about micromanagement.
Another thing I like about MTW is the fact that you can create your own campaigns and tweak the game so that it is more historically accurate. WTF is accurate about AOE?
The battle tactics of MTW have completely blown me away!! I've never seen anything like it. With AOE, you guys are right, it's all about throwing masses into the fight and hoping you win. WTF?!!
I would like someone to list the AOE & AOK forums and then I suggest we go in there and evangelize those poor stupid punks to the glorious new world that is MTW. It's time we opened their eyes and took them away from those retarded games. Now, who's with me?
Hakonarson
10-30-2002, 04:00
My 6 and 8 yr old sons play AoE - I play MTW.
I'm not sure what that means, but it's bound to be significant!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Paladin, help yourself trying to evangelize to the AOE players. They will laugh at you and accuse you of being unable to handle the pace of their game. This may be true too if you haven't ever mastered a true RTS. So my advice is to stay here and enjoy what you've got because not everyone has or wants the same things, in life or in gaming. This doesn't make either group superior, just different.
shand994
10-30-2002, 05:17
Queen of Scots, Spoken like a true girl!!!!!
Mary, Queen of Scots
Quote Paladin, help yourself trying to evangelize to the AOE players. They will laugh at you and accuse you of being unable to handle the pace of their game.[/QUOTE]
Thanks but how do you know? I can handle RTS but what fun is it if you spend so much of your time worrying about that one stupid farmer? Maybe some of these AOE players are like me, they want historical and they want combat but have not found exactly what they wanted. But unlike me, they settled for that inferior game.
Quote So my advice is to stay here and enjoy what you've got because not everyone has or wants the same things, in life or in gaming. This doesn't make either group superior, just different.[/QUOTE]
How do you know unless you've approached these poor lost souls? Have you spoken to them about it? If so, where did you go to speak to them? What is their website? Confess!!
Richard the Slayer
10-30-2002, 05:21
AOK multiplayer was a blast when I played it, but single player sucks. AOK bears little resemblence to real war - theres no morale or anything. In fact warcraft is the same as AOK, as well as starcraft, that new star wars game, in a gist all those games are the same, RTS games in which the guy with the fast clicks and better keyboard speed beats players who dont have it. If people try to convince you theres actually stratgey to AOK, their dead wrong. There is some stratgely, but if you want to win the game you better be damn good at building quickly. MTW over AOK hands down. In a gist AOK is a kids game, MTW is for adults (some exceptions)
Richard the Slayer
10-30-2002, 05:27
BTW is you guys try to convince kids that MTW is better than AOK, they'll never play it. In fact most people who play AOK dont give a rats ass about history and play it because the units are cool. Kids wont enjoy the "thinking" game that MTW requires.
Paladin, I know because I was a competitive AOK player for 2 years. I was over 2000 rated which is quite high if you are not cheating (and I never!). MTW is IMHO a better game, but that is because it is what I am interested in right now. I don't give a rat's a$$ for the history part of this game, it is the gameplay itself that has me hooked. The stategic map is almost more fun than the battles are.
And if you go to the AOE community (www.mrfixitonline.com, you will find them all drooling over Age of Mythology. They could care less if it has anything to do with reality, it is (once again) the gameplay that is the draw.
It doesn't matter what you play, so long as you DO play!
muffinman14
10-30-2002, 05:44
I agree with soapy frog that AOE is a click fest but its a great game but doesnt match the variety like MTW has with troops, strategy, and tactifullness.
LittleGrizzly
10-30-2002, 06:54
i used to love AOE i picked up shogun http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif although i still enjoy playing it now + again i always find i much prefer mtw
Saw the heading and came here for a laugh...
...OMG you were serious!!! ?
Cheers
------------------
PSYCHO HOJO / PSYCHO SO
Lord Romulous
10-30-2002, 08:51
liked the look of aoe 2 at the store.... brought it home played it solidly for about a week, got bored with its horrible ai and basic strat. so i chucked it in my closet , and i think it is still there http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
there is really no comparison.
the only thing i liked about aoe was its simple map editor.
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 10-30-2002).]
Chopping trees down = boring...enough said of AOE.
------------------
Don't be in a rush to die!!
daShibmiester
10-30-2002, 09:29
MTW is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better because AoE doesn't hav tactics at all
all you do is charge your guys at the enemy and hope for the best
Rosacrux
10-30-2002, 13:48
pure RT"S" ain"t "S" (S=strategy) at all. It's real time alright, but there ain't no strategy involved whatsoever. Add to it that the "tactical" aspect is just... how fast you produce units and send them over in waves to overwhelm your opponent, and the picture is that of a click-faster-than-the-other-guy boring game.
In that particular genre I've enjoyed Cossacks, for a brief period of time (about... 10 days, maybe 11) and the first AoE (for a bit more... maybe 15 days) due to it's pseudo-"historical" feel (yeah, I am a sucker for history...). But that's all. I did play Dune 2 (the original) when it came out and I really despised the whole genre since then.
MTW on the other hand... is superb. I play it exclusively for more than a month now and I think it'll keep me occupied for a couple months more... at least.
I posted at aoe2.com and gave notice to those gamers that they should check out MTW. I hope they will. For their sake and the sake of their families. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
G0THIC-Lobster
10-31-2002, 18:00
well, the only thing wrong is that when do the chinese have knightz in the middle ages but...medieval is different the arabian unit are different to the western and they have more unique unit, thats what i like abiut this game, and of course the masses of soilders battling each other.
King David
10-31-2002, 20:02
The AOE\AOK Series rocks because the player is given tools to Edit the game to his\her hearts content..The editing aspect is the best..Were in TW You are limited to the code.. Unless you are a profesional at graphics and have to tools pretty much you are stuck with these limitations..
But one thing I found where AOK won...
The Longbows were indeed powerful...
Two groups of Elite Longbows with upgrades and one line of Pikemen protecting the front could take on any other army of comparable cost and win... There were perhaps a little too strong.
They could even take down Town Halls (and towers I think) without getting hit by defensive fire.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 10-31-2002).]
Brown Wolf
11-01-2002, 00:33
AOE (and AOE II) does not have much realism and the units are pretty much the same except for a couple of special units that you can build. But I love the game (Mostly the Age of Kings and The Conquorers expansion) and it does not take nearly as long as the Total War series.
------------------
"No Comment"
andymate
11-01-2002, 06:52
Try warrior kings battles when it comes out that is more realistic than Aoe. Plus its has formations, big units and a good way of getting resources realistic!!
Boleslaw Wrymouth
11-01-2002, 10:39
Quote Originally posted by Nelson:
AoK is a fine example of an RTS in the classic Dune2 form. Real time boom and rush. Tactical discussions concern themselves with time. i.e. How long it takes to get to the next age or how long it takes to build 50 what evers. Do it faster than your opponent (AI or human), and you win. That's it. The troops are robots, fearless and indefatigable. It does have a nice random map generator .
It has been surpassed, IMO, by Cossacks.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you said. I'm amazed Cossacks isn't better known in North America. A clearly superior game. It's both more historically correct and tactically nuanced than AOE or AOK.
Everyone seems to feel MTW is a rock-paper-scissor game but it is much more subtle than that. Paper beats rock on a map, but if rock subtly shifts its initial deployment, chooses a slightly different point of attack, if the weather doesn't agree, if the terrain forces a change then paper doesn't have a chance. Thats real war. Everything the Pentagon researches can be described as paper-scissors-rock but the variables and intelligence and adaptability of the enemy can destroy the entire construct. That's why MTW is a great game and that is why AOK isn't. In AOK you are in the realm of absolute rock-scissors-paper world where its about numbers, cost and time in order to counter an enemy who has the same considerations. It eventually becomes a spreadsheet. From the few MTW multi-player battles I've played, you can win with a quanitative and qualitative deficit if you know how to use your troops. In AOK and, to a much lesser extent, Cossacks, that sort of tactical flair is immpossible.
Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
I agree with everything you said. I'm amazed Cossacks isn't better known in North America. A clearly superior game. It's both more historically correct and tactically nuanced than AOE or AOK.
Everyone seems to feel MTW is a rock-paper-scissor game but it is much more subtle than that. Paper beats rock on a map, but if rock subtly shifts its initial deployment, chooses a slightly different point of attack, if the weather doesn't agree, if the terrain forces a change then paper doesn't have a chance. Thats real war. Everything the Pentagon researches can be described as paper-scissors-rock but the variables and intelligence and adaptability of the enemy can destroy the entire construct. That's why MTW is a great game and that is why AOK isn't. In AOK you are in the realm of absolute rock-scissors-paper world where its about numbers, cost and time in order to counter an enemy who has the same considerations. It eventually becomes a spreadsheet. From the few MTW multi-player battles I've played, you can win with a quanitative and qualitative deficit if you know how to use your troops. In AOK and, to a much lesser extent, Cossacks, that sort of tactical flair is immpossible.[/QUOTE]
Very well said. Again, that was one of the mpressions I had about AOE/AOK. That is, the games weren't based on much more than sheer numbers with no real difference between different troops types.
Brown Wolf
11-04-2002, 04:14
Quote Originally posted by andymate:
Try warrior kings battles when it comes out that is more realistic than Aoe. Plus its has formations, big units and a good way of getting resources realistic!![/QUOTE]
Would you mind giving me (or sending me via email if you prefer) some more information about that game? It sounds interesting.
------------------
"No Comment"
Richard the Slayer
11-04-2002, 04:20
You guys do have to admit one thing. AOK was a streamlined game, and it multiplayer support was incredible. It was the only game could play at 3 AM and expect THOUSANDS of people online and looking to get into a game. Also, I got so much moneys worth out of AOK. thinking about it now, forty or so buck was nothing compared to the hours I played with AOK. with MTW, the forty bucks has not been worth it in any way shape or form. Sadly I quit AOK because it was too abstract and a little silly (the guy with the quicker mouse work was the best) whereas MTW is much more realistic. Although MTW still cant boast more value than AOK. I think somewhere the value lies in replayability, and replayablility lies with multiplayer support.
Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
You guys do have to admit one thing. AOK was a streamlined game, and it multiplayer support was incredible. It was the only game could play at 3 AM and expect THOUSANDS of people online and looking to get into a game.[/QUOTE]
In fact, you could find even more people and start games even easierly with any Blizzard products.
andymate
11-04-2002, 17:15
warcraft 3 is crap. I mean gezus in their movies there is big combat scenes and what you get in the game and its such a dissapointment
I like both.
MTW is historicly accurate and has giant cool battles, while AoE and AoK (and also AoM Age of Mythology, which is basicly AoK with gods and mythical creatures involved) has its charms.
And it DOES require strategy and thinking, just a different sort of thinking.
Prodigal
11-14-2002, 15:28
Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Oct. 29 2002,16:39)]AoE (Age of Emptiness)
That about sums it up, for me. (Sorry if I'm quoting you out of context btw)
It's eye candy crap. There is one tactic that NEVER fails, I've played all of the aoe's & AT THE TIME thought they were the dogs preverbials.
Then one day I saw a review for STW, it said you actually needed to use strategy to win Novel idea for a strategy game.
Could it be, I asked, that sitting in a semi comatose state drooling in front of my monitor & attacking the odd cat with some paladins would not be enough to win? Maybe you can't build walls & towers I thought?
So I got STW, & had the scales fall, the drool dry, & woke up to the smell of total war. Kinda of like RISK, was my first thought, then I had a battle....It took me 4 months before I worked out all the options available in the game.
I still play it, & still ranks as an all time fave. I know of no other game that even comes close to the standards they reached with the Total War series.
Orda Khan
11-14-2002, 17:43
No comparisson
..............Orda
Brown Wolf
11-15-2002, 01:54
Quote[/b] (Richard the Slayer @ Nov. 03 2002,21:20)]You guys do have to admit one thing. AOK was a streamlined game, and it multiplayer support was incredible. It was the only game could play at 3 AM and expect THOUSANDS of people online and looking to get into a game. Also, I got so much moneys worth out of AOK. thinking about it now, forty or so buck was nothing compared to the hours I played with AOK. with MTW, the forty bucks has not been worth it in any way shape or form. Sadly I quit AOK because it was too abstract and a little silly (the guy with the quicker mouse work was the best) whereas MTW is much more realistic. Although MTW still cant boast more value than AOK. I think somewhere the value lies in replayability, and replayablility lies with multiplayer support.
I have got to agree with you.
Dionysus9
11-15-2002, 02:06
I agree 100% too.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.