Where is it?

It would be modern (1880-2000) era.

>age of mythologies
you mean this?

Attached: file.png (256x230, 143K)

What you're suggesting isn't AoE at all, go play Civ or some other 4X.

More like this

Attached: Unbalance the game.jpg (1920x1080, 1.67M)

>post-DoW3 Relic
In the trash bin

It's a better idea than WW1, faggot. Go play shit like company of heroes, warfare like that isn't AoE at all.

>warfare like that isn't AoE at all
What do you mean? AoE has never simulated warfare.

>ESL faggot is also retarded
im shocked.

>He thinks AoE accurately depicts warfare

Attached: 1558443348615.png (505x550, 121K)

>strawman
>literally never said anything like that
lmfao you're just grasping at anything you can after you got BTFO aren't you? Stay off AoE threads retard.

Attached: 1401343873519.png (700x965, 30K)

Then what are you complaining about? Having infantry, artillery and cavalry shoot and stab each other is already typical AoE. Aircraft might be the funny new gimmic, but other than that I don't see the problem.

I have random spike lag with the first definitive edition game :(

Never heard of Empire Earth or Rise of Nations?

you know it wouldnt be that easy faggot it'd be totally worthless in a AoE setting, they'd have to make it not like ww1 at all.
>machine guns
>tanks
>aircraft
>howitzers
>snipers
>melee would be literally useless unless given huge damage resistance bonus
>trench warfare
it's cool to imagine but it'd be shitty as fuck to implement, and the balancing would be weird and confusing, it'd be not like AoE at all. at least in company of heroes, even though it's ww2, you spawn squads of infantry so it makes sense. for example in an AoE mindset who wins between a machine gunner and a riflemen? Do we just assume the machine gunner can shoot on the fly? What about 20 riflemen versus 1 machine gunner in a trench? shit like that, nah, it's not going to work.

You're annoyed that they won't depict WWI/WWII warfare accurately and I can assure you that they won't. Just as they have not even come CLOSE to depicting Ancient, Medieval and Enlightenment era warfare accurately either.
Here's your worries applied to AoE3:
>The game doesn't feature Tercios, that's ignoring important military advancements
>Cavalry doesn't get damage bonus for charging, that's stupid!
>Why is the biggest ship a single decked Frigate!?
>Why can't I place field fortifications!?
>Why can my howitzers only fire on buildings when they're ideal against infantry?

And so on. AoE has never depicted warfare accurately. There has always been made big, very big, simplifications.

those remasters are somewhat awful and full of bugs
so think twice about spending money on them

In that time era it's forgivable though, and your problems arent even close to the balancing problems I brought up. At least AoE3 has a suspension of disbelief because it's primitive modern warfare. WW1 AoE would be fucking retarded, there would be way too many factors at play for an AoE game. If you can simplify everything down to rock paper scissors, it'd be a ww1 game that wouldnt click with anyone.

At least with AoE1, 2, and 3 combat, you can break it down like this:
>spearmen beat cavalry
>swordsmen beat spearmen
>anti-artillery beats artillery
>cavalry beat swordsmen
>archers beat slow infantry
etc.

With modern warfare there are way too many factors ESPECIALLY in a game like ww1.
>gas beats all infantry if they're not wearing gas masks.
>oh just remove gas, lets keep it simple.
>tanks beat all infantry unless they have artillery backing them up
>lets make infantry be able to hurt tanks OR lets remove tanks
>planes can target buildings and can only be shot down by other planes
>lets make infantry be able to shoot down planes OR lets remove planes
etc.

and lets not ignore the fact that AoE is literally a game where you can mass produce any unit you want.
>build a bunch of factories
>spam 100 tanks on end
how does the opponent even counter this? you'd have to make tanks exceptionally weak or make it a unit you can only make every 5 minutes, already not like AoE at all.

yes of-fucking-course they will

>In that time era it's forgivable though
Just because you don't care so much about that era as you do the modern one.
>AoE3 has suspension of disbelief
It really doesn't. I'd say you are american but then you should actually still know what warfare was like in the late 18th and in the 19th century. I'm guessing you're just retarded instead.
>WW1 AoE would be fucking retarded, there would be way too many factors at play for an AoE game
I could say the same for AoE 1, 2 and 3. Warfare has always had a lot of factors on both the strategic and tactical levels that AoE has simply handwaved away because that's not the kind of game they're making.
>It'd be a WWI game that wouldn't click with anyone
It wouldn't be a WWI game. It'd be an AoE game set in the modern period. You're looking at it all wrong.

>Counters
Simple, goes something like this, just basing it on AoE3
>Line infantry has strong base stats and are good all around
>Arty beats line infantry
>light infantry beats line infantry
>Cavalry beats light infantry and arty
>Anti-Cavalry beats cavalry (AT-infantry are the new spearmen)
>Line infantry are your best bet against AT-infantry
It's nearly identical to your first and simple list. Adding aircraft to the mix will make things interesting as there will most likely be an AA unit as well, who can also fight infantry.

>Spamming units
How can you even mention this as an issue? It's basic RTS and basic AoE as well.
>Build a bunch of stables
>Spam 100 Knights on end
>How does the opponent even counter this?
It's not that hard, use anti-cavalry and make the Tanks/Knights expensive.

>you're just a-a-american!
retard. no one gives a shit about your gripe of AoE 3 missing Spanish formations when it's all about the technology and how primitive it is. Read my post.
>durr just make it like AoE 1-3
yeah no fucking shit, that's easy to say with infantry and cavalry.
>not addressing my points about vehicle combat
You can literally make 50 planes and then fly them over 90% of the enemies forces and attack their TC and you'd win. They would have to place a million fucking anti AA everywhere on the map, and having those placements attack infantry too would be fucking stupid.
>oh just make it expensive when AoE3 had literally infinite resources
faggot.
>AA unit in WW1 can fight infantry
LMFAO
>literally thinking a fucking tank can be comparable to a knight in AoE3
jesus fucking christ you're actually fucking stupid, lmfao. I'm done here.

aoe won't work in ww1/ww2 era simply because the combat is built to deal with "standing around warfare", not trench/cover warfare
also during that era fortresses and cities sort of become entirely separate instead of the typical AoE castle-town

They've written themselves into a corner. AoE III covered too larger a time scale honestly. You had late 1400s as the earliest all they up to post industrial revolution. There is such a large separation in technology it's laughable.

AoE IV should be Napoleonic wars to the Russian/Japanese war. Heavy emphasis on scramble for Africa and decolonization of the Americas.

>no one gives a shit about your gripe of AoE 3 missing Spanish formations
Formations was pretty much the defining feature of combat up until the Boer war. Leaving it out is the equivalent of leaving out machine guns, which I assume they will for the same reason.
>yeah no fucking shit, that's easy to say with infantry and cavalry
Yeah, and I just did. I don't see the problem.
>Make 50 planes
>They get shot down by infantry
Oh wow, that was hard. With your logic it shouldn't be okay to make air units when fighting the Zerg either because "it's all beasts that kill you with their fangs and claws"
>Faggot
I make a valid comparison to a previous game, and this is your counter argument? I'll consider that matter settled.
>AA unit in WW1
Didn't even exist.
>A tank can be comparable to a knight
It can. Both are heavy cavalry that are immune to infantrymen's attacks unless the infantry are equipped with special equipment to fight them. And that's the real life comparison, it's much much easier to make in an RTS like AoE.

AoE haven't worked with previous eras of combat either, they didn't care.

>no Mesopotamians
>no Celts
>no Indians
>no Mesoamericans
>no Slavs

Would be too short a period for one AoE game. 1st one is around 600 years.
2nd one is around 700 years.
3rd one is around 400 years.
Making the 4th one as short as 150 years would still be pushing it.

Time is relative only to technology advancement. From 1790 to 1905(?) you have a massive technological shift, despite the time frame. Meanwhile in the settings of 1 and 2, you have great periods of stagnation.

>Time is relative only to technology advancement
And in the year 3000 all warfare from the 1880s to 2200 at least will - with some very rough simplification of course - easily be compressed into one system. Time is relative as you say.

At this point Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds will get a remaster before we see AoE4

>Would be too short a period for one AoE game. 1st one is around 600 years.

it goes from the paleolithic to the iron age which can be like.... 75,000 BC to 700ish AD

Attached: hb2jlvu4sdk31.jpg (750x742, 98K)

Clone Wars and GCW will be expansion only. Base game will be Disney Wars.

I don't understand the hype. There are several games that let you control an actual country, not a couple of peasants and men-at-arms.

I was being generous. Shut up.

It's a famous brand, what more reason is needed. People were hype for DoW3 as well, until they weren't.

>people were hyped for dow3
After the shit show of 2, and with Games Workshop in general, I am actually stunned by this.

Many feel the same way about AoE3 and Relic picking up Ensemble's work. It's quite comparable, really.

I love that game.

Attached: Saga.jpg (800x1137, 144K)

you dumb fuck DoW2 with expansions is fucking amazing.

those games aren't action games

Even in the more conventional RTS/RTT that is Retribution the pop-cap was still way too small.