First, it's because of genuine shortcomings compared to 2. Second, because of odd changes compared to 2. Third, it's not 2 which means fanboys must hate it by default.

>>1374496
1.Its new
2.Its not 2
3.Its in 3D
4. Most americans only know about american history (poorly), and even less about 1600-1800 period outside of muh slaves.

2 could run in most toasters while 3 needed a decent PC, so fewer people played it, I remember the beautiful water. good times.

AoE3 was a wild departure from the formula, unlike AoK which was an improved version of AoE gameplay. People did not like new gameplay and returned to older games. Nowadays this feud is pointless as AoE2 and 3 exist and receive updates separately from each other.

>>1374496
Because there just weren't that many people who were interested in AoE but weren't already playing 2 and 2 players didn't feel the need to switch after playing the game for years. Also genre purists didn't like the shipment system.

>>1374758
It was indeed a beautiful game for its time.
Also nice how every civ has their own set of units instead of the same two-handed swordsman for everyone.

File: NPColdgood.jpg (137 KB, 720x686)

137 KB JPG

>>1374496
Two main reasons
>The game is just not as tight as 2
Units rubberband to keep formation, there's less formations overall and less ways to micro / control unit positioning, guns can't be dodged like catapult / archer projectiles, there's a lot of gimmick units and the game was also never truly balanced (France has the best cavalry, infantry and artillery in the game, Dutch are a meme civ)
All of this results in less depth and skill in terms of base gameplay, making it less infinitely replayable than 2
>The card system was cancer in original release
It's an interesting idea but having to grind 30+ hours of online games per faction to unlock all the cards pretty much killed the online multiplayer scene when combined with overall a less mechanically skillful game than 2

AoE3 is fun, the campaigns are great, the gameplay is not even that bad if you just want to casually play it for 10-20 hours, but once you do, there's just very little left to learn and discover outside of the ridiculous card grind, vs AOE2 which to this day gets nerds discovering meaningful new mechanics & interactions based on shit that was coded 20 years ago.

1. Deck building was a chore.
2. Campaigns weren't historical at all.
3. Game went way too hard on the unit counters.

>>1374496
American conquest was better tactically speaking

File: sherlock.png (292 KB, 915x933)

292 KB PNG

>>1374805
>Game went way too hard on the unit counters.
Oh yeah this was 100% retarded
>This cannon kills units
>This cannon kills buildings
>This cannon kills other cannons

>This man with gun kills this man with gun
>But not this man with gun, who will kill your first man with gun
>Btw there's man with small sword and shield who kills cavalry
>There's also 239847 native units that all look exactly the same and have esoteric nonsensical bonuses against random things
>???
Shit made no intuitive sense compared to
>Spear kill horse, horse kill bow, bow kill spear, catapult kill crowd, ram kill building

>>1374839
True, a bullet is deadly by the joule that it have. I don't understand why they add this stupid arcade mechanic even in the 2nd. I can understand spear vs horse to have a bonus, but an arc or a rifle that is better against cavalry or some unit it's a retarded mechanics same with artillery.

>>1374839
>>1374849
It makes sense when you realize that "rifleman/skirmisher" has rifled gun, meant to kill any infantry, but the musketman counts as heavy infantry that is more vulnerable to his attacks, but also his musket just deals ranged damage with no counter statistics (making him a generalist unit)
But I agree that tags should be more visible, since it leads to some really demented moments, when a rhino is one of best tanks since it has no tags (so no counters) and huge health pool.

>>1374839
The counter system for the base european units is not that bad and light infantry countering heavy sort of makes sense because >>1374850 but some of it is sort of arbitrary like dragoons are good against other can and artillery for some reason. Including natives, mercenaries, all the expansion civs having different rosters and all the other possible nonstandard units makes it a mess though. Just teh fact they had to invent "shock infantry" for aztecs bloats the damage modifier list even though it's not relevant most of the time. Another easily overlooked thing is that units can have melee or ranged armour on top of it. Shooting at a 40% ranged resistance unit is kinda different even if you are supposed to have a damage bonus against them. Also some units change stats depending on stances.

>>1374507
People hate AOE3 because it's not like AOE2. People hate AOE4 because it's too much like AOE2.

>>1374803
>ridiculous card grind
This has been removed in DE.

>>1374839
>239847 native units that all look exactly the same
These were all variations of existing units, and they didn't look the same.

>>1374839
AoE2 units are a load of fuck tho. You just got used to their bullshit.
>pointed stick guy bad against everything that isn't a horse, even a villager, pretty bad against horse anyway
>catapult bad against castle
>ballista bad against siege
>infantry bad against bow unless bird
>spear chucker gud against bow, because shut up
>some bearded guy gud against cav and mango
>camel is ship

>small maps
>small unit counts
>very little feeling of a base building and expanding to control the entire map
>most buildings are useless
>limit on how many buildings you can build
>cannons are ridiculous
>stupid cards and decks mechanics that are mostly useless with a few ones that are neccessary or you lose automatically
>terrible top down view
>bases are small
>forests are small
>units all look the same and don't feel unique
>visually garbage background that clutters the view
>bases look like a collection of same sized same looking structures with no distinction between them.

AOEII has a few distinct differences that makes the game way more enjoyable

>background isn't cluttered
>buildings, units and even civilizations are distinct from another
>Actual economy building where a large part of the game is building up a distinct base
>units and buildings are visually pleasing whether they're singular or in a collective.

>>1374943
>camel is ship
is fortunately no longer true in the remakes. People say it was because of technical limitations on the number of armour classes and they thought that it wouldn't be a problem but the absolute retards forgot that building arrows deal additional damage to ships so camels were a joke units for ages. I'm not sure what the point even was though because I don't think any land units in original game actually interact with camels specifically, they could have just had cav tag. So maybe it was on purpose.
Why in AoE logic javelin throwers counter archers I will never get, that was always retarded.

>>1374948
>skill issue: the post: the movie

Also mostly wrong like
>units all look the same and don't feel unique
Is really pulled out of ass, when every faction has its own theme of buildings (even euros have variants) and the game has no stupid bullshit like Aztec zweihanders

>>1374948
You make several good points, but not everything.
>small unit counts
>most buildings are useless
>units all look the same and don't feel unique
Like what the hell? This is just not true.
>cannons are ridiculous
They're strong, slow and vulnerable. There's nothing wrong with them.
>civilizations are distinct from another
Bullshit. This is how I know you're a butthurt retard. This is something aoe3 does better than aoe2.

>>1374496
>people hated it when it was new because of legit reasons (performance, graphics etc)
>now people hate on it mainly because they hear is bad and people hate it

File: thonk1528675131026.png (96 KB, 327x300)

96 KB PNG

>>1374850
>It makes sense when you realize that "rifleman/skirmisher" has rifled gun
I mean fair enough? But also I don't think anyone but huge history nerds would care.
As someone who recently replayed the game for the campaign I genuinely could not give enough of a crap to learn which man with gun counts as 'rifleman' and which one counts as 'musketman' because in the heat of combat it all sort of blends together
And although your example makes sense, you really cant excuse how one cannon destroys rows of infantry while another takes several shots to kill a musketeer because its not an 'infantry killing cannon'. I get game balance but from spectacle / common sense point of view it doesn't truly help people stick around and get invested into learning all the counters, as an answer to why the game isn't as popular as AOE2.

>>1374943
Coming from SC or cnc or even RoN I hated how
>Units prioritize formation over attacking
The edge of a line of archers could be in fucking distance of a unit and not fucking initiate a shot or conversion because
>Janky ass formations
Also
>Two forms of attack move

>>1374834
>>1374496
I consider Cossacks/American Conquest to be the superior gunpowder RTS, if nothing else because of the formations.

>>1375033
>you really cant excuse how one cannon destroys rows of infantry while another takes several shots to kill a musketeer because its not an 'infantry killing cannon
like trebs/catapults/scorps/bombard cannons?
shut up man

AoE2 is more obtuse cause much data is simply hidden, you wouldn't know the bonus damages unless you googled it. Guess the counters are hard for simcity players that turtle until they hit the pop cap with paladins, that are somewhat of a superunit.

>>1375315
TBQH 3 also hid some shit.
Like priests not counting as "infantry" but as a "healer", leading to now nerfed priest spam that outtanked musket lines, while inquisitors burned down Town Centers in seconds.

>>1374496
it's not historically accurate and no Historical campaign until Asian Dynasty and then there's only 2 semi accurate campaigns in that expansion. Also AOE 2 and AoM can already do all of what AOE 3 and 4 can do but better. The definitive edition doesn't help that much too

>>1375066
there were formations in regular age 3, in DE they merged them into the unit stances though
mainly because cav boxes literally destroyed the game

>>1375515
You're confusing things. Cav boxes was a bug that was eventually fixed with an update in DE but the formations and stances were already merged before DE.

>>1374849
musketeers have smoothbore guns that can't hit shit unless they fire in volleys. To do that, they have to fight in line formations, which also make them good in melee thanks to the numbers. Skirmishers, on the other hand, have rifled barrels that can shoot accurately. As such, they don't have to fight in tight formations like musketeers, but this in turn makes them shit in melee since they're dispersed into smaller groups. The game accurately reflects that by making musketeers good in melee against cavalry, but shit in ranged combat against skirmishers who can spread out and take cover like modern infantry.

File: 1629402932_AOE3DE Unit Chart.jpg (1.39 MB, 1614x5237)

1.39 MB JPG

>unit counters is hard :(
imagine getting filter by this
yep 3 is the thinking man´s game
>me spam archers
>me win

>>1375636
Why are rodeleros and rajputs not considered shock infantry?

>>1375647
Because they're bad vs ranged infantry and artillery and good vs cavalry. Shock infantry in the game is basically foot cavalry.

>>1375636
Why are rodeleros and rajputs not reworked to shock infantry?

>>1375636
Why list the units? You can tell what's heavy infantry and light infantry by the way they hold their gun. All melee infantry is heavy infantry, even the fast ones. All archers and crossbows are light infantry.

Several exceptions but listing every unit will just confuse people trying to learn.

>>1374803
> OP France
Has never played Germany.
> Meme Dutch
Has never bank-maxed.
> discovering meaningful new mechanics in a 20 year old game
This doesn't happen.
> less skill required
if you mean less gook clicking than sure

>>1374927
>People hate AOE4 because it's too much like AOE2.
No, we hate it because it's some miserable damn abortion that fails to capture the good points of 2. It's like a bad parody by people who completely missed the appeal of the original.

>>1374496
It came hot on the tail of a game that managed to nearly perfect the genre, and it discarded every lesson learned from the previous game to "Shake things up" and test out many other new ideas that didn't really belong in the same game. I'm sure you could make a few RTS games that could really use these, but AoE's format doesn't play nicely with things like "700 wood" shipment cards.

>>1375881
I don't disagree with what you say, but my point was that AOE4 lazily tried to copy AOE2 without any innovation, while barely taking anything from other AOE games.

>>1374496
Soulless gookclick garbage. Literally no reason to play it when II exists.

File: Longswordsman_aoe2DE.png (72 KB, 256x256)

72 KB PNG

>>1375905
>while barely taking anything from other AOE games.
It was a strange attempt to bridge 2 and 3 with varied age bonuses + actually varied nations (in theory resulting in much more gameplay variety despite less civs) but the presentation and overall mechanics are just not very good under the surface
It's the same as aoe3 desu, not a bad game at its core but the new ideas just don't add anything meaningful and the stupid gimmick nature of it all ontop of shallow balance & base game mechanics makes most people not want to play it.
It has its playerbase, the same as DOW2 and even DOW3, but objectively it's just so mediocre most people will likely forget it happened in a year.
...Not dissimilarly to AOE3, actually.

>>1375515
Formations in Cossacks actually model units gaining experience/morale, you can make them rout and disintegrate. It's different from how AOE models formations.

>>1375957
>Cossacks actually model units gaining experience/morale, you can make them rout and disintegrate.

What? That's not true at all.

>>1374839
>>There's also 239847 native units that all look exactly the same and have esoteric nonsensical bonuses against random things
the Aztec unit that's just a guy who can hit buildings as hard as a falconet always threw me for a loop

>>1375959
It's true of AC/Cossacks 2.

>>1375940
>actually varied nations
And the devs learned exactly why you can't hope to make that work in a game: They can only depart so far before the game becomes unplayable (poor balance) or civs turn into a single playstyle, rather than a set of options that are augmented by the game.
Civ VI has the same design issue. Most civs are constrained to a single playstyle by the game's heavy emphasis on bonuses, with only a few exceptions in civs like Japan, Germany, Arabia, and Sweden.

AoE2 was very popular and much beloved by people. AoE3 feels like a completely different game. They changed things so much from how AoE2 worked that it barely feels like an Age of Empires game.

>>1374927
>People hate AOE4 because it's too much like AOE2.
It cribs a lot of notes from AoE2 but doesn't really add much of interest. It released in a blatantly unfinished state, also, which is never good for a game's first impression on players.

>>1375905
>my point was that AOE4 lazily tried to copy AOE2 without any innovation, while barely taking anything from other AOE games.
So you didn't play it.

>>1374496
It’s a good game. Weirdly overrated. I get that some of the changes like the home cities didn’t work that well and all cards should have been unlocked from the start, but it was still great fun to play and the colonial setting worked really well. It also still has the best graphics in the series and even beats 4 in that regard lmao. Very pretty game.

>>1375940
>actually varied nations (in theory resulting in much more gameplay variety despite less civs)

AoE3 and AoE4 both majorly suffer in this aspect because you can't just random a civ and play. You have to memorize every single civ and all the different build orders for every single one. In AoE2, you can practice a basic fast castle and it will be reasonably effective across all civs.

AoE3 also really suffers with the unit counter system frequently not being clear what a unit actually counts as (lol coyoteman)

I've played 6 hours of AoE4 (Art of War and half the English campaign)
it's not a BAD game, and I appreciate how they tried to mix things up with a "history channel" thing. I do like the visuals of those golden ghosts on the land as it is today. I think people are just disappointed that it's not an AMAZING game.

>>1376066
>AoE3 and AoE4 both majorly suffer in this aspect because you can't just random a civ and play
on the equally valid flip-side, someone might say you can pick any civ and it'll play the same

>>1374496
I'll never forget school was cancelled during a Hurricane shortly after this was released. I played all throughout the storm and the internet/power never went out. It was glorious.

File: 15423279.jpg (108 KB, 681x626)

108 KB JPG

>>1376066
>AoE3 and AoE4 both majorly suffer in this aspect because you can't just random a civ and play. You have to memorize every single civ and all the different build orders for every single one. In AoE2, you can practice a basic fast castle and it will be reasonably effective across all civs.
Random civ is easily the worst thing to happen to the Age franchise.
It doesn't resolve the issue of balance. It just attempts to mitigate it from the view of averages while both failing to deal with it in individual matches (random Dravidians vs Hindustanis) and introducing a separate issue: It means many matches played won't bring each civ out to its maximum potential. Build orders unique to a civilization, or tech options that wouldn't be viable on most civs, will be ignored because the player can't reliably bet he'll get civ #36/42 to play with. Appreciation for individual characteristics is lost as players develop a "reliable baseline" playstyle that functions no matter which civ they roll. SEA civs suffer specially hard because they each have unique aspects most players won't be able to take full advantage of or compensate for without studying.

File: proxy-image.jpg (81 KB, 960x960)

81 KB JPG

>>1376066
>each faction being unique is le bad
>actual deep units le bad
just play chess then
you can even pick a random color that controls the same each game too

>>1374965
I prefer AOE3, AOM and even AOE4 so much more than AOE2 to be honest. I love how all of those games have civilisations which are actually distinct from each other. AOE2 is just like “yeah you get a 5% farm bonus and your archers do +1 damage to elephants, enjoy your new unique civilisation bro.”

>>1375636
That’s something I always hated about AOE2 as well. The best strategy is almost always to just spam your most OP unit and that’s it. It’s so boring.

>>1376009
Of course he didn’t. He just waited till release and copy pasted his complaints from all the other AOE2 faggots.

>>1376011
*should say overrhated

>>1376066
>you can pick any civilisation you want and use exactly the same strategy every time and it will work just fine.
>AOE2 fags use this as an argument IN FAVOUR of their game.

The absolute fucking state…

>>1376066
>You have to memorize build orders
This is not how games are supposed to be played.

>>1376009
>>1376386
>making assumptions about strangers based on absolutely nothing.
Wow, very smart, I'm impressed. I'm not a AOE2 faggot, I think AOE3 is better. I was very excited to play AOE4, but I just didn't like it. Besides better walls, AOE4 didn't bring anything new to the table. I'm allowed to have my opinion. Please tell me how I'm wrong.

>>1376423
How I’m wrong

>>1376066
> you have to adapt for every civilization
This isn't a positive? I will say it's annoying that you need a deck figured out for each civilization before you go in, but building them is a lot of fun.

>>1376384
>That’s something I always hated about AOE2 as well. The best strategy is almost always to just spam your most OP unit and that’s it
ah yes the...single unit meta of aoe2

>>1376384
>Never played the game

>>1376455
If you can't imagine other people having different experiences, then there is something seriously mentally wrong with you.

>>1376466
>If you can't imagine other people having different experiences
Anon, this isn't "different experience". This is you being a schizophrenic. anyone who plays online regularly knows this game isn't a damn UU simulator.

>>1376475
I'm not that person, I disagree with him, but your comment was so incredibly short sighted that I had to respond. Also he didn't say he plays online or not. Even online at low elo, the game can definitely be won just by spamming one unit, mostly knights.

File: caste_system_624_v2.jpg (203 KB, 624x540)

203 KB JPG

>>1376389
>you can pick any civilisation you want and use exactly the same strategy every time and it will work just fine.
That's not exactly true, american & some hindu civs straight up don't have knights, then there's civs like mongols / huns / aztecs that are built to rush the enemy instead of booming, there's civs like goths / byzantines that are built to be lategame powerhouses but suck early
Just because one base strategy is viable with 80% of the roster does not make it 'work every time', it's something you can do to learn and play any random civ and still succeed, while getting a feel for their bonuses and playstyle, instead of having to alter your entire gameplay if you decide to try something else.

If you have to spend 10+ hours playing every civ to understand how it works your game will not keep many players. Case in point: AOE4.

>>1376552
>what? do I have to spend time to learn the game?
>just gib me dat dopamine!
zoom zoom

>>1374496
>Why do people hate 3 so much?
Because AoE2fags are pure cancer just ask any other AOEfag about aoe2fags and they will tell you the same.

>>1376537
"Can work" and "is the best strategy" are two very different things.

>>1376804
Well, that anon is probably not very experienced with AOE2, so it should be no surprise that he has an unnuanced opinion.

File: 1600628471113.jpg (109 KB, 478x492)

109 KB JPG

>virgin online players explaining variety of stratages
>chad with 10000 hours vs easiest AI wondering why you'd ever make anything other than longbowmen

>>1374850
>but also his musket just deals ranged damage with no counter statistics
He's also "Armed with a bayonet to beat cavalry"
Disclaimer: The musketeer model and derivates never use a bayonet and just swing the musket like a club

AoE series was conceived as a combination of real-time strategy with 4X, but 3 is the one that truly commits to the latter.

>>1376248
thanks doc

>>1374496
aoe3 will always be better than aoe2. Certain people didn't like it because it wasn't much swords and pop history medieval times.

>>1377393
Congratulations, you are contrarian enough to post on 4chan

>*ch chink*
>OOOO REEEEIGH
>*pew pew pew*
>*tududu dummm*
>OOOO REEEEIGH
>*ch chink*

>>1377521
sovlfull....

theres nothing like playing as a chinaman and sending hundreds of expendable cheap troops into the meatgrinder

File: 1517468851272.png (44 KB, 657x527)

44 KB PNG

>>1374496
i'd say
>HP bloat and plenty of modifiers that cram up the unit information panel (explorer does 6 melee damage, x3 to treasure guardians but 1/4 vs villagers, 12 ranged with same stats, and 15 siege damage -- each of which are separately stretched across the UI)
>not understanding the hard counters or why different guns/cannon do different things instead of being different machines with different firing types
>rubberbanding in formations (if you try to flank and one of your cav get shot, all of them will move at half speed unless you seperate that one from the group)
>maps feel too small and the three terrain levels doesn't make them feel too distinct outside of natives and the terrain tile set. Conversely, units do tend to move quite slow
>naval feels quite limited because there's only a handful of maps with limited transmissible rivers, most them having shallows for foot units to cross, which keeps your ships relegated to one quarter of the map
>slow production unit times (encouraging you to build up your queue) means that you can either have a barracks make 1-5 muskeeters in 30 seconds or 1 musketeer every 6 seconds
>no dropoff points, instead focusing on gather rate over/time
>farms and estates hold 10 villagers instead of 1, and most buildings are pretty moderately sized, creating a lot smaller bases in comparison to how you could theoretically wall off your base in Age2 with houses as you're working towards pop cap
i like doing 1v1v1 compstomps against the hardest AI for the events and farming all of that yummy XP into new people walking around my city and new colored pennants
I like how factions have different builds centered around cards that can change new functionalities/add new units, and how each civ type has their own different kind of shtick that they can play around with. A shame that limits how many civs they could add because of unique models and whatnot, I'd be okay with more natives/revolutions

>>1377864
make 1-5 muskeeters in 30 seconds in contrast to 1 musketeer every 6 seconds*
this is immediately most frustrating when you're under attack and need just a few units to hold a stopgap, but realize there's no way for you to respond before its too late

Is there a reason to upgrade generic archaic units instead of ditching them entirely? It's pretty cute how pikemen get extra range tho.

>>1378027
stopping surprise raids since they train faster

File: 1670388188826935.png (2.05 MB, 1374x1224)

2.05 MB PNG

seeing the da vinci tank made me realize that we were rob with age 4

>we will never see WW1 kino with AoE style

>>1377866
Odd. Another anon said this favors the defender because the small batches of units pop up instantly and the units add up quickly without requiring you to build many barracks, as opposed to a useless trickle of easily overwhelmed singular units.
Anyway, when the enemy's rush is still a decent distance away, a pro move is to time your units well. First, you send a shipment of units, then queue up some units at the barracks, and finally call in the militia. If timed right, all these units will join the action at the same time, creating a small army.

>>1376437
RTS fans think it's a positive.
The general casual consumerbase that brings billions of dollars in profits thinks it's a negative. In fact, RTS is too hard. Make ass creed 30 instead, include plenty of X to awesome moments.
Who do you think gamedev suits will listen, and cater to?

>>1376066
how is this a positive? i played aoe a shitton and my main detracting factor for the game is the samey civs(exceptions for american, indian, and SEA civs, but most could adapt to generic build orders), at this point its really a pathethic attempt to defend aoe2, just stop right now sinjay theres no shame in it

>>1376066
>>1375940
>You have to memorize every single civ and all the different build orders for every single one.
no, i'll just look up one (1) cool build order for the English and do that and still have fun.

>>1374496
not a 'hardcore fan' but 3 was kind of a let down.
Made up story and characters instead of real historical figures.
gameplay wasn't really good.

Still liked it.

>>1374496
3 genuinely tried to do something different to the point that you wouldn't think it's from the same series as 2.
It's a good game but I can see why it upset people. Especially considering a lot of people at the time straight up couldn't play it because of the system requirements.

File: Hanover_drummer_portrait.jpg (65 KB, 512x512)

65 KB JPG

Oh no no no...

>>1378714
still whiter than 100% of the esl goblin people forever bitching about inconsequential culture war shit

>>1378719
If it is inconsequential, why waste time changing it?

File: 1679381384879519.jpg (94 KB, 680x591)

94 KB JPG

test

>>1378714
that's just Thomas Alexander Dumas

>>1376719
They’re so fucking insufferable lol. AOE2 is the smash brothers melee of RTS games.

>>1376805
Every team game is the same thing. Everyone walls until late game then spams their most OP unit. Usually knights or some kind of cav. Sorry I’m not 2000 elo I really couldn’t give a shit how the game is played at that level.

>>1379179
He was a mulatto in the French army.

>>1379624
everyone knows that blacks weren't invented until 1980

File: multipliers.jpg (24 KB, 400x238)

24 KB JPG

>>1374496
i like age3, but the UI for attack modifiers is pretty unintuitive to read

>>1379179
He reached the fucking rank of Divisional General, he wasn't some drummer boy.

>>1382445
Yeah im conflicted.
On the one hand they were trying to fix the aoe2 damage bonuses thing that were straight up not displayed anywhere and you were sort of supposed to figure it out by online communities (like how am i supposed to know what skirms to +2 agaisnt spears??) And for the sake of clarity i like it but its just way too much visual clutter.
Maybe if the dmg multipliers were an expandable menu, its not like you need that info at all times anyway. Or something that appears when you hover over your dmg number

>>1382445
Eh, you can get used to this (the font could have been larger and the colors more varied, tho). The thing that's even more busy is the descriptions of the effects of shipments that apply to various buildings, units, stances, etc.

>>1376834
>Chad is someone who watches Paint dry
I get people not liking ladder but this pve faggotry and smugness just shows that you are the worst players

>>1378249
>a useless trickle of easily overwhelmed singular units
in AoE2 you could garrison newly produced units in their own building by defining it as the rally point
on topic, i used to shit on AoE3 for being not-2, but now I value it's variety, visuals and gameplay, it's actually quite well made in spite of the flaws other anons pointed out

>>1384130
I don't think anyone's ever denied that AOE3 is a well-made game, but it's just so different from 2.

>>1374758
It's a surprisingly good-looking game for 2005 3D models in an RTS, a lot of other games from that era did not hold up.

>>1374948
This

>>1374948
>civilizations are distinct from one another
>aoe2
oh no no no aoe2 sissies not like this

>>1374758
I actually remember buying it and then not being able to play it until I got a new laptop a year later

>>1387859
Tell me more about how Aztecs are like Mongols