Aoe Iii!

Well I would like to congratulate the people who made RTW. I think this has to be one of the best games I have ever played.It combines realism,good graphics,no pop limit, cities, decent AI, and much much more into one great game!

I was a big fan of AOEIII before I became a STW fan. Then I played STW and then RTW! I was thinking of buying AOE III but then I looked into it a bit more and realised it was all eye candy!

I saw that the maximum amount of people in any empireyou could have is like 100 people!In rtw your whole empire can have like 60,000!In addition there were all kinds of crazy things like health bars for units and such. I honestly think AOE is a great line of games but it cant compete with TW.

The reason I say this si because I dont know why people make remarks like "RTW has bad AI" and other things. Compared to other games RTW has pretty awesome AI. WHile not the best Im sure that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has ever been a RTW fan has had the AI kick their ass at least once.


I certainly hpe that TW:IV will be as good as RTW and RTW :BI.

I think though,that he people who make TW games are probably the makers of the best online strategy games.

Yes RTW has its faults.Like negative income for now apparent reason and people revolting for no apparent reason even if you have full city upgrades.This along with the idiotic squalor system which I felt undermined the game.Someone said that food should have played a bigger part in teh game.I agree.


BUT these are minor problems.And now since im a fan of TW games you can bet that the 4th TW game I will be on line to buy!

Second that one.

While the AI may not be as good as a human player, it's still the best out there for such a complex game.

The AI for games like AoE isn't really a tactical AI, it's more of a building AI. It simply churns out more troops and attacks more often with the increased difficulty settings. It doesn't really care for tactics beyond which troops to send and how often to attack.

The AI here really isn't comperable to the one of for example AoE. If you autocalc every battle, then you could compare it.

The difficulty of the game(which means the AI) is really the only thing I would improve if I was the Allmighty God of Software...

Oh, and if you get negative income(I'm assuming you're talking about your treasury, not individual city), then you should have a closer look on the financial tab, you'll find the answer there...

A convert!

Excellent.

No comparison, RTW is all over aoe. Still I would have to give them something for starting my interest in strategy games.

As for the AI in 1.3 I like it a lot, the new comments give added reality ot the batttles, its giving me a hard time and thats vanilla RTW!, I've already had several Scipii armies wiped out by Carthage , battles I thought I would have had a good chance of winning....

AOE III is what you say true eyecandy game.
It is exactly like the other AOE games only with a nicer graphics and rag-doll physics.
Once you get past the wow effect the game stinks.
I had hoped that they would actually take a step towards a more tactical game instead of the "click-build-gather and rush the enemy as fast you can" sort of game like they have done before.

And it is very true that when you compare AOE III to RTW you realise that the AI in RTW is actually better.
Hell, even RTW 1.0 had better AI then AOE III.

.
AOE is for kids. :no: TW is for...well...us overgrown kids. :yes:
.

Used to play AOE too, even cossaks :p then someone I worked with mentioned STW, life changing gaming moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
AOE is for kids. :no: TW is for...well...us overgrown kids. :yes:
.

---

I wouldn't say that...

AOE is enjoyable in its own little world. It is by far one of the best resourcegathering games there is. It complexity compared to similar games makes it refreshing. You can of course, like every other game of that type, rush or mass troops. But if you choose to do neither it can be fun.

It shouldn't be compared to the TW games... Which indeed are better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

AOE III is what you say true eyecandy game.
It is exactly like the other AOE games only with a nicer graphics and rag-doll physics.
Once you get past the wow effect the game stinks.
I had hoped that they would actually take a step towards a more tactical game instead of the "click-build-gather and rush the enemy as fast you can" sort of game like they have done before.

And it is very true that when you compare AOE III to RTW you realise that the AI in RTW is actually better.
Hell, even RTW 1.0 had better AI then AOE III.

---

you can't say that. AOE will always be better at multiplayer than RTW. I remember back in the day of AOE1 and AOE2, they looked good, very good. AOE's didn't even need that much computer power, and they looked damn good. The custom maps are a load of fun too.

Single player wise, rtw is probably better, but multiplayer wise AOE is definitely better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taiwan Legion

you can't say that. AOE will always be better at multiplayer than RTW. I remember back in the day of AOE1 and AOE2, they looked good, very good. AOE's didn't even need that much computer power, and they looked damn good. The custom maps are a load of fun too.

Single player wise, rtw is probably better, but multiplayer wise AOE is definitely better.

---

Actually I can say that since my post was about the AI and the AI is in sp and it clearly sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taiwan Legion

you can't say that. AOE will always be better at multiplayer than RTW. I remember back in the day of AOE1 and AOE2, they looked good, very good. AOE's didn't even need that much computer power, and they looked damn good. The custom maps are a load of fun too.

Single player wise, rtw is probably better, but multiplayer wise AOE is definitely better.

---

Well what is the pattern of a GOOD resourcegathering basebuilding RTSer?
CLICK FAAAST!!!
Memorise shortcuts!!!!!!!!!
RUSH RUSH RUSH!!!
This is from my post int the TWCenter:
As I explained the etymology of the word STRATEGY, its clear that the whole RT"S" pattern was drawn on a VERY simplified (dumped down) version of reality of warfare:

Resource collection, hmmm right whats the mania about it? Did any ancient/modern general bothered with economics or where the moneys coming from? Isnt it very nice and fun to have your little peasants gather some gold/wood/anything? If youre 12 or have been imposed a 12 years old's design... Why the TAXATION, the TROOP ACTUAL UPKEEP and trade economics are absent? Wait the genre is designed for 12 years olds...that explains all.

Hit points bar: Well its the rigid line between the TW (and some other wargames) and the RT"S" crowd. Simplified and utterly needed because of the overfocus on scirmish/gang fights of 20-50 INDIVIDUALS (my next point) looks IMO quite funny since we all know that people dont have green liquid in them (except maybe orcs?)...

Gang wars: Yep the scale of warfare is so extreme that its like looking on a globe with 50cm diameter and trying to find your home village of 200 residents. Now one may say that well 1 soldier represents 1000 but the question that arises is: why in TW series they achieved 1 soldier to represent just 10? Yes you control 20 UNITS but each soldier's experiense, and stats are calculated on indiviual basis and in that time the armies operated in units not just some UNORGANISED mob (in some cases they did but they werent armies-->Horde formation) and the scale in TW is dictated by hardware demands more than by developing it. While the gang wars RT"S"es put all their effort on woo graphics.

Morale: The garlic of the RT"S" vampires. All try to avoid it at all cost or compromise in a way (WH40k's excuse of a morale system the soldiers just losing some fighting abilities NOT fleening automatically). Why they do that? Is that strategy? AoEIII doesnt have it while we all know that morale was the BASIS of all warfare (spartan anyone?) and disciplined armies conquered the world.

Basebuilding: There are two exptremely simplified parts of the whole army creation: The scale. When the barracks that a soldier was supposed to be training in are the same height as he is its clearly shows the pattern and the target audience of such games (compare this https://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?...apimage0jx.png

to this https://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?...pimage22lu.png

The whole notion of building at the same scale and time scale as the "battles" unfold. We all know that the building construction takes MONTHS (if not years) and that the battles take minutes and hours, now its clear how this was simplified but if you far from reality you cannot recreate strategic thought.

Whatever I say however the fact that basebuilding shortcut memorising clickfest RT"S"es will outsell wargames remains. Like the FIFA outsells the only soccer emulator Pro Evolution Soccer every year with EA's same trivial tennis like gameplay.

Hellenes

Why do you people even bother to compare these games? If I want to play TW, I play TW games, if I want to have a nice game of AoE, I play AoE. The games have 180 degrees different purposes, what sense is there in comparing them with each other?

It's pretty single sided to say that RTW is simply better than AoE, because RTW is trying to be a simulation (of course with gaming gimmicks, as it's no fun to play a fully realistical game) and Age of Empires is simply a fun game where you can have a game without having to worry about beeing stuck there 6 hours.

And the multiplayer of the TW series is simply bad, compared to the singleplayer aspect.

I personally think the multiplayer is even worse than most other games because it's not gripping enough, but that might be just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I wouldn't say that...

AOE is enjoyable in its own little world. It is by far one of the best resourcegathering games there is. It complexity compared to similar games makes it refreshing. You can of course, like every other game of that type, rush or mass troops. But if you choose to do neither it can be fun.

It shouldn't be compared to the TW games... Which indeed are better.

---

.
Of the AOE class of games, I liked Cossacks pretty much but the resource management/upkeep thingie made it simply unplayable. Haven't tried the II yet.
.

I really liked Cossacks, and have Cossacks 2 as well, but 2 is a huge step back in my opinion.
You have to give fire commands to every formation, you can build soldiers way too fast, the AI likes to rush you early, it´s somehow hectic and so on.
The worst was when I tried to play MP against my friend and noone could really win because in the time I could send a new formation to the front, he had already built 2 or 3 new ones and the other way around. Besides that it was slow on machines with less than 1GB of RAM, this got adressed(to some degree) in the first patch, but I didn´t really like the game and think it had some more potential, but I haven´t played it anymore after one or two weeks...

RTS's are what you get when you combine high strategy with a first-person-shooter.

Not to say that RTS can't be fun. Starcraft was and is an awesome game, and one of the defining RTS's.

.
Starcraft and C&C were classics. :yes:
.

I just spent like four hours trying to get the AOE III trial version to install and after playing it for 30 to 60 minutes I uninstalled it. I was incredibly dissapointed with it. It sure is pretty, but it is still an AOE game. I bought and played all the AOE games up to Age of mythology (though I didn't get its addon) before I tried STW. It can't hold a candle up to a TW game in enjoyability.

AOE is just a click fest. There is little tactical strategy and I don't think I could go back to a RTS game now. There is no morale (which is huge), no elevation is considered (as far as I can tell), exhaustion isn't considered, formations arn't considered. Certain troops are better at killing other troops but that is it.

I remember the first AOE being advertised with "build you empire!" or something like that but it clearly isn't. You get no sense of building a society or political empire. There is no sense that your actions would be historically relevant. It is a real shame. I don't think they are willing to really experiment with the title since it has been so successful either. The total war games aren't perfect but they are the best I've found. Clearly a major aspect of the game will be war (the battles are the best I've seen), but I wish there was more to do in peacetime and the strategy map had more depth. More diplomatic complexity and realism would also help a lot. RTW was a definite improvement but it could go much further. Constant war can get tedious.

I keep saying it, my ideal game would be some mix between TW and the civ games which had frustratingly limited combat. It, and to some extent the TW games, simplify historicalness in the extreme that could only be remedied by much more complex simulations of the evolution that political units and societies experience. Obviously they are just games but America showing up in the stone age as an independant society puts extreme stress on my suspension of disbelief.

Like Arcanum said, it isn't really fair to compare the two; they are different animals. Obviously a lot of people enjoy RTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
Starcraft and C&C were classics. :yes:
.

---

Yea, the C&C games were pretty good though I don't know about anything after Tiberian Sun. Red Alert was one of my favourite games. I didn't mean to sound so hard on RTS in my earlier post. They have their charms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

I just spent like four hours trying to get the AOE III trial version to install and after playing it for 30 to 60 minutes I uninstalled it. I was incredibly dissapointed with it. It sure is pretty, but it is still an AOE game. I bought and played all the AOE games up to Age of mythology (though I didn't get its addon) before I tried STW. It can't hold a candle up to a TW game in enjoyability.

AOE is just a click fest. There is little tactical strategy and I don't think I could go back to a RTS game now. There is no morale (which is huge), no elevation is considered (as far as I can tell), exhaustion isn't considered, formations arn't considered. Certain troops are better at killing other troops but that is it.

I remember the first AOE being advertised with "build you empire!" or something like that but it clearly isn't. You get no sense of building a society or political empire. There is no sense that your actions would be historically relevant. It is a real shame. I don't think they are willing to really experiment with the title since it has been so successful either. The total war games aren't perfect but they are the best I've found. Clearly a major aspect of the game will be war (the battles are the best I've seen), but I wish there was more to do in peacetime and the strategy map had more depth. More diplomatic complexity and realism would also help a lot. RTW was a definite improvement but it could go much further. Constant war can get tedious.

I keep saying it, my ideal game would be some mix between TW and the civ games which had frustratingly limited combat. It, and to some extent the TW games, simplify historicalness in the extreme that could only be remedied by much more complex simulations of the evolution that political units and societies experience. Obviously they are just games but America showing up in the stone age as an independant society puts extreme stress on my suspension of disbelief.

Like Arcanum said, it isn't really fair to compare the two; they are different animals. Obviously a lot of people enjoy RTS.

---

Well I agree with your first points BUT if people advertise RTW as an RTS and AoEIII as an RTS they clearly compete. Its just imo whole DOGMA of a huge part of gamers that are trapped in their dreamworld thinking that they build an empire (yep with building same size as people and couple of town centers...) whilst they play the pinnacle of dumped down warfare...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Well I agree with your first points BUT if people advertise RTW as an RTS and AoEIII as an RTS they clearly compete. Its just imo whole DOGMA of a huge part of gamers that are trapped in their dreamworld thinking that they build an empire (yep with building same size as people and couple of town centers...) whilst they play the pinnacle of dumped down warfare...

Hellenes

---

I've always considered the TW games to be turn based because of the strategic map part of it. If you do compare them, I agree there is no competition. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

I just spent like four hours trying to get the AOE III trial version to install and after playing it for 30 to 60 minutes I uninstalled it. I was incredibly dissapointed with it. It sure is pretty, but it is still an AOE game. I bought and played all the AOE games up to Age of mythology (though I didn't get its addon) before I tried STW. It can't hold a candle up to a TW game in enjoyability.

AOE is just a click fest.

---

I was asking myself whether my next game was going to be Civ IV or AoE III. The only AoE title I've played is the first one, I didn't like it a whole lot but there have been heaps of other titles in the series since.

So I just installed the demo and played for a couple of hours tonight and I have to agree. It's a total clickfest. Even on the "Easy" setting it's really hard, the AI just seems to send endless numbers of troops your way, there's no way to really organize your troops, they don't seem able to even use walls you build, but the thing I hate most about it is the speed, you have to stay busy busy busy or you get trounced by the AI, and there doesn't seem to be a way to slow the pace of the game down either.

Not only that, but it's amazing how little the game has moved on in concept since the original. In fact, I have to say I enjoyed the original better! It's a bit more controllable than this mess.

After a few more hours playing the demo I've changed my mind to a degree. There *is* a bit of depth to the game - I think.

It would partly depend on what keyboard commands are available to control your different military units. If there are keys to select the different types of military units, it would be an improvement.

But there are still some astonishing omissions in the game. I can't *believe* that the only way of selecting multiple units with the mouse is to pull a rectangle around them - it hasn't changed from the original game! It's an incredibly clumsy method, making it virtually impossible to select just the units you want without including some unwanted units.

I mean, at least they could give you a rotational rectangle. Or better still, why can't you just hold down the mouse button and draw around the units you want? Or select a number of points around which your selection shape will be completed? Would that really make it too complicated?

A pause button, where you can set commands for your units with the game frozen, as in RTW, would be a great feature too, for those of us who like to plan a bit. IMO that is a very serious omission in a game of this type, especially after so many instalments.

On the plus side, there's an option to slow the pace of the game in "skirmish" mode. But they really need one in the campaign too, and there isn't one in the demo. I wouldn't much fancy playing through an entire campaign at the hectic pace of the default setting.

I also couldn't understand the military unit stats, it would be nice if they'd included a bit more info.

Anyhow, there are lots of different military units, and you can sorta organize them with some frantic clicking. But with just a couple of the most basic improvements, this game could be so much more fun. Why haven't they made them after all this time?

Well, they actually have had groups that you can create and select using control and the number keys since possibly the earliest game. I think you can also press shift or something to add selections to what you've already selected. Also, if you double click on a unit all units of that type on screen are selected so it isn't so bad.

I don't think that is enough to save my own interest in the title though. I think they really are scarred to take any risks with the basics of the game because they have been so successful with it. Maybe they could make some sort of offshoot of the game that sort of experiments with the nature of the game. They could leave the click fest rushed feeling to something more strategic and focussing on things other than war so that you can sort of pretend you are building a society. AOE is all about resource managment really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

Well, they actually have had groups that you can create and select using control and the number keys since possibly the earliest game. I think you can also press shift or something to add selections to what you've already selected. Also, if you double click on a unit all units of that type on screen are selected so it isn't so bad.

---

Yeah, I've since discovered that. There was nothing about it included with the demo though, which is kind of silly. They seem to assume that everyone who looks at the demo has already played one of the previous titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

I don't think that is enough to save my own interest in the title though. I think they really are scarred to take any risks with the basics of the game because they have been so successful with it. Maybe they could make some sort of offshoot of the game that sort of experiments with the nature of the game. They could leave the click fest rushed feeling to something more strategic and focussing on things other than war so that you can sort of pretend you are building a society. AOE is all about resource managment really.

---

After a foray on one of the AoE boards, I get the strong impression that AoE these days is mostly aimed at multiplayer. Most of the posters appear to be MP gamers, and they seem to like the game the way it is, so perhaps the developers know their market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

After a foray on one of the AoE boards, I get the strong impression that AoE these days is mostly aimed at multiplayer. Most of the posters appear to be MP gamers, and they seem to like the game the way it is, so perhaps the developers know their market.

---

Repeating myself:
"Its just imo whole DOGMA of a huge part of gamers that are trapped in their dreamworld thinking that they build an empire (yep with building same size as people and couple of town centers...) whilst they play the pinnacle of dumped down warfare..."

Hellenes

In fact the only games in pc i have played till now (series) were AoE and TW.(but played really really much)
I used to be a great fun of AoE (I,II,Conquerers)....
but one day came and i saw her...
and the time stopped...
and the sky was filled with brightness and colours...
her smile.. ups ! no!
but it,was TW series ,first Medieval and then Rome and BI.And i forgot all about AoE.
AoE? ~:confused: whats this ?~;p

I am a heretic........I like aom and the new aoe better then tw *gasp* I got sick of rtw. I want to play for fun and I just find the multi player on the aoe games the best. Especially the sims scenarios on aom!(I love to be the mayor and favor a few people and make the game hell for the rest~D, great fun )

The only thing I get mad about in aoe is when some little 12 year old comes on and it goes something like this

kid "giv m sum gol)"

Me "no I need it"

Kid "fag"

kid " u r fag"

KId "nerd"




Then he proceeds to wall you in even though he is your ally and he gets killed and you can't help because he won't let you out~:joker:

had this less than a week and am already bored. i hate the campaigns and prefer skirmishes, but have figured out how to fool the ai (even on difficult mode) which makes the game kind of a drag

Don't worry, there are plenty of 12 yrs old in RTW MP too.

You join their game,
You ask for rules,
Kid remains mute,
Next thing you know when the game starts,
He call you a cheating fag...

I like RTW and RTS games(especially starcraft), I have to disagree that RTS is simply click feast(maybe some bad titles but not starcraft). I can't say I am good with RTS but I have seen really good starcraft players doing their thing and totally owned his opponents, it was a beautiful.

IMO RTW is a potentially good MP game but it is screwed with crazy lag 8 out of 10 games. While RTS(like starcraft and AOE2) still owned RTW in MP because of the smooth gameplay and like some other poster said, more grippping.

In the end it is just a matter of how well the game is designed not the genre.

Starcraft is indeed posssibly the best RTS out there. It is still being played by more than 30k at any given moment on the European server...

I lovethe ample opportunities for reverses in battles, you are never truly out for the count if you survive the first few minutes if you are rushed.
I was a rather good SC player in my day, and it was amazing how many strategies that were thought up, and how much attention was put into using the terrain to one's advantage.

In a very good 4v4 battle I had at a LAN party I got rushed early on, and you simply can't withstand four players, that is impossible. So I died... Jusu about as one of my probes (Protoss) managed to escape... A New Hope.

I ended up in a place where there was lots of gas but little minerals. What did I do? I went for for Dark Archons. It was brilliant! I arrived just in the nick of time to save my fellows (who had survived). One Terran attacked with a mass of Battlecruisers, and since I was the only Protoss on my team he considered them safe (thought they had killed me). Bam bam bam... and I had captured 10 and Feedbacked another 7, which my captured Battlecruisers then obliterated with ease.
To hear the loud "NOOOO" from the other side ofthe room was about the most beautiful I have heard when playing computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaLurker

Don't worry, there are plenty of 12 yrs old in RTW MP too.

You join their game,
You ask for rules,
Kid remains mute,
Next thing you know when the game starts,
He call you a cheating fag...

I like RTW and RTS games(especially starcraft), I have to disagree that RTS is simply click feast(maybe some bad titles but not starcraft). I can't say I am good with RTS but I have seen really good starcraft players doing their thing and totally owned his opponents, it was a beautiful.

IMO RTW is a potentially good MP game but it is screwed with crazy lag 8 out of 10 games. While RTS(like starcraft and AOE2) still owned RTW in MP because of the smooth gameplay and like some other poster said, more grippping.

In the end it is just a matter of how well the game is designed not the genre.

---

Well the presence of 12 years olds isnt the genres fault but the milking publishers...
Starcraft non clickfest?
Have you ever seen a GOOD Starcraft player?
The build order doesnt need to be memorized?
What about zerg rush?
Its a well known fact that if a group decides that one thing is good many follow...pure mass psychology, in Greece many doesnt even know that RTW exists they concieve basebuilding clickfests as what the real strategy is all about...
Ill repeat myself once more:
"As I explained the etymology of the word STRATEGY, its clear that the whole RT"S" pattern was drawn on a VERY simplified (dumped down) version of reality of warfare:

Resource collection, hmmm right whats the mania about it? Did any ancient/modern general bothered with economics or where the moneys coming from? Isnt it very nice and fun to have your little peasants gather some gold/wood/anything? If youre 12 or have been imposed a 12 years old's design... Why the TAXATION, the TROOP ACTUAL UPKEEP and trade economics are absent? Wait the genre is designed for 12 years olds...that explains all.

Hit points bar: Well its the rigid line between the TW (and some other wargames) and the RT"S" crowd. Simplified and utterly needed because of the overfocus on scirmish/gang fights of 20-50 INDIVIDUALS (my next point) looks IMO quite funny since we all know that people dont have green liquid in them (except maybe orcs?)...

Gang wars: Yep the scale of warfare is so extreme that its like looking on a globe with 50cm diameter and trying to find your home village of 200 residents. Now one may say that well 1 soldier represents 1000 but the question that arises is: why in TW series they achieved 1 soldier to represent just 10? Yes you control 20 UNITS but each soldier's experiense, and stats are calculated on indiviual basis and in that time the armies operated in units not just some UNORGANISED mob (in some cases they did but they werent armies-->Horde formation) and the scale in TW is dictated by hardware demands more than by developing it. While the gang wars RT"S"es put all their effort on woo graphics.

Morale: The garlic of the RT"S" vampires. All try to avoid it at all cost or compromise in a way (WH40k's excuse of a morale system the soldiers just losing some fighting abilities NOT fleening automatically). Why they do that? Is that strategy? AoEIII doesnt have it while we all know that morale was the BASIS of all warfare (spartan anyone?) and disciplined armies conquered the world.

Basebuilding: There are two exptremely simplified parts of the whole army creation: The scale. When the barracks that a soldier was supposed to be training in are the same height as he is its clearly shows the pattern and the target audience of such games (compare this https://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?...apimage0jx.png
to this https://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?...pimage22lu.png

The whole notion of building at the same scale and time scale as the "battles" unfold. We all know that the building construction takes MONTHS (if not years) and that the battles take minutes and hours, now its clear how this was simplified but if you far from reality you cannot recreate strategic thought.

Whatever I say however the fact that basebuilding shortcut memorising clickfest RT"S"es will outsell wargames remains. Like the FIFA outsells the only soccer emulator Pro Evolution Soccer every year with EA's same trivial tennis like gameplay."

Hellenes

I got AoE III the other day and I'm rather enjoying it.

Starcraft IS a clickfest, but being a good clicker won't ensure victory against one who isn't. You need more than fast fingers (trust me you need pretty fast fingers in MP MTW).
And 6-pools are easy enough to counter. The problem is just that people of inequal experience meet and the experienced player uses a rush, then inexperienced playerwill go all "BROKE BROKE BROKE", but if he had played as much as the other guy he could have stopped it, besides unless it is small map the rush is going to be slowed hugely by the need to scout, giving even a player that doesn't prepared for a rush time to respond to it. And on small maps you have to expect a rush, and when you do it you can easily respond to it.
Its all about applying the right ideas. And a rush repulsed is going to pay back onto the rusher with great damage.

hellenes I am not sure why you hate RTS so much but you must remember that RTS or "TW series" are all games and in no way reflect realistic battles, infact RTW may seem close(really it is not) but will never be realistic enough.

As a "game genre", RTS games have their charm and fun and "TW series" has it own. I can tell you I seen players in starcraft really skill full in terms of tactics and the tide of the game are always shifting when you see good players do their thing, like what Kraxis. Even the TW games itself is a click feast and there are times the lag aid me in some games because I am slow lol.

Just for the record I have stopped playing TW campaigns, TW games may have a good campaign games IMO better than most RTS campaigns, but like the RTS games in become a drag because the battle AI is yet to meet a human player challenge, the only challenge they give is the campaign AI with its seemingly endless hordes and stacks of armies, they just make me sick of fighting battles and the only time a player would lose is when his army is total exhausted by the relentless & endless hordes.

so who do u have to play to get the samurai? i see one in the opening vid but don't know who to use to unlock - i assume they appear as mercenary cards. i figure it's either the portuguese or the dutch, but don't feel like playing the wrong faction to find out.

I think they show up for the British in the demo, though you can´t use them there.

portuguese level 4 ronin samurai mercenaries card. i can't wait to use them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

portuguese level 4 ronin samurai mercenaries card. i can't wait to use them!

---

Level 4? Most factions don't get mercenaries until level 10..

I am going to get AoE 3, a copie of some1 else... Can anybody say if/how he enjoyed it? Did you feel good or bad when playing it?