Essentially the drive for conpetetive play is something that kills games like this for me sure it produces absurd lpngevity but ultimately all factions then play the same... I like age of mythology because all civs play differently have a very distinct character. There is also this power spike mwcganic that is a one time use which i think is excellent. He keeps refrencing competetive machanic. And he keeps refrencing age of empires and thstbit is a faster pqced. It is essentially a criticisn that it lacks typical balance like aoe 2 because its not competetive enough. Aom always hit me as a laid back epic experience. Not a star craft speedy aoe 2 experience. I still hunger for a more massive scale and maybe unique concept but aom was really sonething. It died because the player base grew up. Bot because it wasnr competetove. The idea of e sports is cancer, and competetive play should be reserved for games made specifically for that purpose. Such as aoe 2. The besr competetove rts isbuktimately the one that has basically varying skins on the same civ. Or at least as little variety as possible. I personally like the ones with the most variety with the most character and that is aom. I agree with some complaints, such as the lack of trash units, and some temple or faith gsthering issues but beyond that the game really is splendid. The pop cap... Ehhh thats a bit of an issue as well.
A disagree with most of the video. 1. For the god powers, I really like the spiky aspect they offer. Sure, it might make the importance of a particular fight a lot higher, but its one of the few mechanics that separates AoM from other games. If you make them on a cooldown, the mechanic becomes a lot less unique. Also, knowing to work around your opponent's god power and when to use your own can create a interesting game o chicken and allow players another avenue to outplay the opponent. Of course god powers have to be balanced accordingly, but I prefer them to be the way they are. 2. I'm not sure units having different modes of attack add anything really. If anything, the abilities associated with mythical creatures and heroes are a better and more simple version of that. Also, minor gods do allow players to make certain unique upgrades already, they only need to be made more meaningful and, alongside myth creatures, can make the player opt for a worst god power in exchange for permanent upgrades, its only a matter of balance. 3. I actually think that the Greek way of collection favor is the worst of all pantheons. It basically becomes the same as collecting food from a farm. It doesn't add depth to the game in any way shape or form, as its just a matter of "How many favor you need for your strategy? Oh, so you need that many people praying". It becomes a puzzle, and the problem with puzzles is that they can be solved. The egyptian, at the very least, forces you to make a bigger upfront investment that cannot be so easily transferred to other resources and also limits how much favor they can build. The norse one, forces, at least in theory, a more aggressive play style if you wanna get a lot of favor. 4. I've also had that complain from your AoE 2 videos, but I'll reiterate here. If your game starts at the 10 minute mark, you already have a flawed design. "Cheese" and aggressive strategy do have their place in RTS and completely nullifying them would take away a play style that many people enjoy. I know people will disagree with me, but when you have a game with no cheese and early rush, the initial build order becomes set in stone, becomes solved, and that's a problem. In a strategy game, you expect people to use strategic thinking from the very beginning, and not only after 2 and a half minutes have elapsed. Sure, when you look at AoM and AoE2, you can have variations on the initial build order, but those are usually minor adjustments that you'll only see the results after a while, Look instead at SC2. The possibility of rush and cheese makes the early game a lot more varied and important, as you always have to be in your toes. I'm not saying that AoE2 is bad by any means, but I'm just making the point of why having cheese can be a good thing. 5. I agree that AoM could use some trash units and I can see the argument for scouting resources being less informative as resources blend together. That said you could easily apply a system similar to Starcraft, where most of the information you gather are based around what buildings your opponent is making, even tho how many probes on gas is also a important info. That said, Age of Mythology is not Age of Empires 2. I repeat, AGE OF MYTHOLOGY IS NOT AGE OF EMPIRES 2. Just because gold is used exclusively from a military standpoint, that doesn't mean it has to be the same for Age of Mythology. You can have resources filling different purposes, without just copying AoE2. 6. To be fair, infinite farms aren't that different from self-replenishing farms, the only difference becomes that you need enough wood to sustain them, which doesn't necessarily add any depth anyway. 7. Titans are interesting and unique feature of the game. I agree that they weren't all that well made, but I believe the mechanic should be expanded instead of tossed aside. Making a Titan can be very dangerous, as you have to spend a lot of resources to advance to the titan age and a lot of villagers digging, and you opponent can choose to build a army and attack in the mean time. It only needs to be balanced. If anything, I would say the biggest problem is the player's ability to turtle, rather than the titan itself. If players can attack and destroy walls and towers more easily, investing in a titan becomes a lot riskier. 8. Funny that you call the starting towers a "patch" yet don't like cheese builds. If anything, its much harder to attack early on in AoE 2 compared to AoM. And again, early power spikes, cheese and rushes are not bad design just because you don't like them. In summary, some of the suggestions are interesting, but most of them are trying to strip AoM from at makes it unique to begin with. Also, many points clearly shows your bias towards your preferred strategies. I really like late game battles, but even I can see the place cheese has in a RTS.
I disagree with pretty much everything you mentioned. All the things you dislike is what makes AOM so unique in the first place. You just want a reskinned AOEII with myth units, and that's not what AOM is. I would hate it if they make AOM2 the way you're describing.
As somebody who has held AOM as my favorite video game for a long time, I really really appreciate this kind of critical analysis of it, I really want a sequel to exist and the mechanics do have a lot of places that need improvement if any future games are to be competitively playable. I never loved playing ranked stuff online but I do know how crucial it is for the health of RTS games. So yah thanks for this video!
While I can definitely see a change to how the god powers work, or more consequential upgrades, I don't think the devs should go for a mini DoW style individual unit upgrades. The Age series has mostly focused on macro, and while AoM is more micro focused, it still is about managing your base, economy and counters. I could definitely see mutually exclusive upgrades, but I think they would apply globally. Having several weapons might work, but it seems that could really get out of control with special individual upgrades, which I don't think fit the still macro oriented nature of AoM. Actually, the game already has mutually exclusive upgrades in the minor gods, so they don't really need all that much more. As for the powers, I think a limit like the Atlanteans would be a good idea, where you can use most god powers multiple times, with a cooldown inbetween. This allows the devs to give the player "do overs" while still keeping the god powers limited in amount of uses. With unlimited uses, I think there would have to be a high favor cost, otherwise they wouldn't feel as impactful for balance. Speaking of favor, I'd like to see it given some sort of continuous cost to getting. It wouldn't have to be resources, but I think having a multipurpose unit or building the player has to use to get favor would set it up as this precious resource, that needs to be husbanded. Or maybe it wouldn't work out. While the Norse method is difficult to see work, I think one of the standout parts of AoM is the highly different nature of the factions, and I would want the devs to continue that trend. Maybe the Norse could garrison their warriors in temples to generate favor. Another thing I'd like to see is a rework of the special attacks, so that the player can choose when they go off. Since they go off the moment the myth unit attacks with a full bar, they feel really finicky and like a lot of the time you'd waste something like the medusa's petrify because the bar would refill and there'd be nothing but basic infantry around. I wouldn't want them to be a powerful as StarCraft 2's and I think an energy bar would be a bit much, but the ability to chose when the special attack goes off would really help players use them tactically, instead of wasting them. I can see how the Egyptians not using much wood would be a problem, but I think switching what they use wood and gold for would keep them gathering both, while making them feel unique. Honestly, considering Relic's success minimizing base building, getting rid of drop off points could be quite praised. That and I think you are presenting a false dichotomy, that the factions have to have drop off points or else no base building. For one the slow movement of citizens and the fact that they'll be all over the map encourages player to defend their gatherers. I could see a different way to tie the citizens down, such as making them gather slowly, but the player can create a structure that speeds it up. I suppose part of it is that I've heard several commentators praise tactical rts games so much it sounds odd to hear someone say they don't like it. Not saying that you are wrong, hell, I think Dawn of War 2 is somewhat overrated, but I think there are ways to tie the Atlanteans down while making them different from the other factions. I think that there is inherent value in making factions asymmetrical, and, while it has to be weighed against balance, I'd argue that too many commentators discount it as entirely secondary.
@Bao Thuy Okay, so getting rid of impermanent FoW is more "proper". So is one unit selection, no shift key and no unit abilities. Any more advancements we should throw out? How about the shift key?
I appreciate you trying to think of a version more fun for you, but I think it sounds less interesting and less leading towards and evocative of the strategies (ah yes, summoning titans, I know) and economics of the historical cultures than the original. I'd like to make it clear that this is intended as more of a querulous (and at times self promoting in the context in which I try to offer alternatives) than aggressive tone (also I don't know your opinion on later AoE2 expansions): Spanish blacksmiths and the plumed archer upgrade are cases where knowing whether or not one's opponent is mining gold does not provide insight as to (certain) upgrades. There are also cases where the lack of collection of gold may not indicate that an opponent is creating a unit to counter one's own, as with early defensive spearmen against expected scouts not necessarily benefitting enough from technologies to justify the added cost, due to the limited improvement to their already powerful counter in this area (my apologies if I'm misrepresenting your point or being unclear myself). The market's exchange function also lessens the argument for creating military expectations from a glance at economic activity. In the later expansions of AoE2 -which I have heard many decry as less balanced (but which is of less concern to me than how interesting they are in gameplay and historical and cultural reference) - Malay Thassalocracy allows pure wood cost defensive buildings in the form of harbours. If one were to take some earlier version of AoE2 as the ideal of RTS design, then I'd again say I like camels being something that aren't made practically worthless by what might have been a harmless "ships of the desert" reference. I don't think the standardisation (or increased "intuitiveness" as a game system for competitive play purposes) is worth what it sacrifices. Changing how civilisations play to guide one towards their historical strengths or in reference to cultural nuances seems to have been most of what guided civilisation bonuses and (perhaps a bit less so, as with the Chinese) team bonuses in Age of Empires 2. The different favour gathering and the various references to how differently Egypt worked (with the farming rate and upgrades, as well as switched costs, although whether the exact choices are the most appropriate, while remaining elegantly simple, is not something I will make claims on) are wonderful pieces of flavour. Serious question: do you think it is more flavourful for "trash" human units to exist without actual justification (think the Malay's Forced Levy)? Cutting off trade routes and mines to prevent the hiring or paying of retainers to troops is very much a military strategy and a wonderful one to see replicated, encouraging *more strategic thinking*. I'm not advocating for abandoning common RTS mechanics entirely for some sort of simulation (I prefer AoM to Total War titles despite ostensibly far closer resemblance to historical combat by several metrics [ignoring the obvious one of myth units] while remaining an RTS) , but rejecting fun flavour for blandness is not something I'll endorse. Importing AoE3's melee weapons for ranged troops in melee range seems to be a solution to the silliness that is archers firing in melee(although I'm not opposed to something like hoplites abandoning sarissas for swords to expedite an advance at the cost of higher losses rather than winning through attrition and being less able to quickly respond to other threats or advance). As I understand it, AoM's town center slots were a compromise on fertile land slots for farms, which seems on the face of it similar to the production buildings (such as farms) of BfME2 needing vast expanses (when building begins) to produce most efficiently (which I've just realised might be a commentary on the destruction (of the farms and mallorn trees) of industry that Tolkien was so interested in as well as a barrier to turtling and booming, although most other production buildings don't bear this out well at all). I'd have to do research as to how each of the AoM civilisations regarded proximity of temples and holy sites. When this religious approach is taken from might have to be settled on. (If one were to do it all over but were restricted to the same units and general game format) Possibly the time of Alexander for the Greeks would be most appropriate, considering the confluence of hypaspists, peltasts and hetairoi (although then I have to also check if combining Greeks and Macedonians is appropriate, the (thousand) ship(s) of the Akhaians long since having sailed with the campaign when the Egyptian spearmen's attire resembles reconstructions of the armaments found at the site of Troy more closely than that of the in-game Greeks, although this is due to a choice for recognisability of the hoplon and so on that I respect). One thing I will criticise Age of Mythology for is the javelin (peltast and turma) as a counter to archers which it inherited from Age of Empires 2. Maybe tweaking speed and some sort of set up period that archers have (representing the commonly depicted idea of setting one's arrows in the ground before use for ease of reach, presumably to improve fire rate) which javelin throwers did not, representing this role as skirmishing against foot troops and outrunning them rather than setting up in static, strategic emplacements as longer ranged archers might be suited for. This seems more in line with how the in game descriptions of AoM and AoE2 of javelin throwers describe their role. I appreciate that some of your ideas were intended to work towards systems Relic (Entertainment?) has used before, but (unless I've missed something), the relic system in Age of Mythology seems a lot more appropriate and tweaking from there rather than a mechanic made for a different setting would seem to be a good idea to me. You do also get a lot of free unit and building stat boosts by aging up in AoE2. For example: Stone walls double in health when one levels up, Sicilian serjeants get a bonus that I forget the nature of and non-defensive buildings have their armour and hp increased substantially. I seem to recall certain upgrades from two ages ago being automatically acquired, but this was on unupdated AoK and AoC disc versions and possibly a scenario editor quirk even there (in the castle age, militia would become men at arms despite the upgrade never being researched and were again transformed into long swordsmen upon reaching the imperial age, for example).
There isn't going to be an AoM 2 until some people take some radical action. But I have some really good ideas for it -- Aztecs, Hindus etc. and I could go into greater detail.
Great analysis! I agree with almost everything you said. However, there's two points I differ on - 1) I don't think it's a good idea to simply replace the town centers on strategic points mechanic (which you disagreed with, as do I) with a holy land (to build temples) at strategic points mechanic. That said, I do agree with your other suggestions for temples or other favor generation structures needing to be spread out (by either an exclusion zone or sharply reduced effectiveness), so long as we get to decide how we do that spread. Also support the idea that we should have to sacrifice something to get that favor (and have more uses for it as with many of the suggestions you made in the vid) - the Greek way of getting it seems most suitable for this so perhaps that can just be made the universal mechanism. 2) I have to admit I strongly disagree with removing the auto-build button on production buildings. Frankly, that's a feature I think a lot more RTS's should have, not less. The reason being that not having that button may reward mechanical mastery (high APM), but it does so with a frankly uninteresting/boring repetitive task. If you want more reward for rapid fire play, do it by giving more units special abilities or toggles, less perfect aim (to reward microing to dodge projectiles), more resources to manage or more need to rebalance or adjust your economy (but not with simply manually reseeding farms - the reseed farm queue in AoE 2 strikes a good balance between infinite farms and manual reseeding everytime) by switching your workers around, etc. I'm okay with auto-build not adapting to your economic situation, tho - basically, it keeps producing as long as you have the resources to support that production, stops if you don't and doesn't automatically toggle on when you do again. That rewards knowing how much production your economy can support, and penalises exceeding that capacity, without bogging you own constantly refreshing production of the same units (and incidentally, I support it being able to infinite produce a mix of units in sequence as well, as seen in games like Supreme Commander, a game which is also still played to this day). Anyway, thanks for the critique and have a great day! :)
Honestly, i think giving each faction a spin on how they produce favor is something that really helps characterise them. While I would like to see more of a proportional component, I think defaulting to the Greek model would downgrade a major plus of the game; unique factions. The Egyptians play differently from the Greeks, who play differently from the Norse and so on. I think all too often asymmetry is regarded as a secondary feature, when it could lead to great gameplay.
I disagree with point 2. I think manual queue adds a lot to the game at both lower and higher levels at play. At lower levels of play, requiring more attention to be spent on macro with manual queue allows macro-oriented players to succeed, even when their unit control/micro may be lacking, as players of the same skill level who put more attention into controlling their units would likely be putting less attention into their macro. If you removed manual queue, players would be almost forced to spend more attention on controlling their units, restricting the agency given to lower-level players when choosing what to improve upon and what to focus on. At higher levels of play, having mechanical difficulty adds to the excitement of matches, and increases the skill ceiling of the game. Knowing that a player has to play super fast and watch so many things at once can make a game more fun to watch, and it means that even some of the highest level players will still make many mistakes. Additionally, high-level players would likely feel more control over their production and resources with manual-queue rather than auto-queue, given that they could use manual-queue quite effectively, and missing production cycles (for example, cutting workers) would often be an intended decision for such players.
I really like this video and your channel in general. This made me think that what business decisions get made for and what team designs AoM2 is kind of random. I feel there is a 70% chance it will be a shitty nostalgia cash grab like W3 Reforged and 30% chance it will be improved. With only 10% chance it will be improved as much as your suggestions. And the only reason I gave percentages this high to my speculation is due to the competence of the AoE2:DE. This made me wonder if there would be a way for you to make a strategy game (or literally your version of AoM2). And one way to get development cost down a lot is to modify an existing team. Even lower if joining an existing team. I feel one of the advantages of open-source software is how it democratizes software creation by lowering the barriers. It also fosters the competition of ideas and reduces competition in resources. This is due to copyleft (the code is "locked to remain open") enabling anyone to reuse and build on top of anyone else's work. You see something similar (albeit in a legally muddy way) with custom map creation (e.g. W3). This brings me to my conclusion. Have you heard of 0 A.D. ? It is an open-source game in the vein of AoE, and I think with some guidance regarding the strategy and metagame aspects it could be an amazing tool to spur diversity of ideas in RTS-s. Alternatively, you could make your own clone of that to implement your ideas for AoM2. Finding a small part-time team of like-minded people to buy into your vision isn't impossible if you can't code yourself. I think art (actual mythology 3D models and 2D art) is secondary to implementing a game and can be gotten quite easily when there is a solid proof of concept. Even I would join in to crowd-fund your art when the game is mostly implemented. For a lower-effort option, the game also supports mods. An interesting recent innovation is an official community balance mod that aims to let the community get easier access to balancing the official game. That too might benefit greatly from your RTS expertise. What do you think? And if nothing else, I would be really curious of your thoughts on 0 A.D.
I know im late for the party, but if I could ask for one thing in an Age Of Mythology 2, it would be more Civilizations and Gods/Goddesses. I’d love to see what Celtic, Japanese, Hindu, Native American, etc. gods/goddesses existed and what creatures could be used.
I think it would be cool as fuck if the choices you take will severaly affect your gameplay for example if you advance an age and you pick Ares you would not only have cyclops as troops but also cyclops villagers (smiths specially) and your troops will have specially efficient weapons and armours that will turn them into tanks things like that In Aom you will pick a civilization, a major god and 4 minor gods that would result in a ton of diferent ways of gameplay that would be wondeefull to explore I think it would also be cool if you could use monks to turn enemy units to your cause but the enemy will not be aware of it by the game lets say you turn a lor of villagers to your cause and a part of the resources the other player send them to gather goes for you or when they build something it will appear with 500/750 hit points Those details are things I would love to see
I was wondering what do you think about the pop in Aom, the idea of some units costing more pop then others, is that somthing that should be changed or is it fine for the gameplay of aom?
Was this made before the Relic announcement of AoE4? Come to think of it, the insane fan backlash to Relic could imperil the series. Ive seen some of the "problems" DoW3 supposedly has and a lot of them are already in the series. Circular cover? DoW had craters that provided cover. No retreat? DoW also didnt have that. The units are too colorful? A) the campaign eldar were painted bloody navy blue and sunshine yellow in the second game. B) they were green and white in the first. C) they included a goddamn army painter- in both games! Its almost like a series based on a miniature painting game has tons of was to customize your forces look. Who knew? There are some even dumber ones. Gabe jumping in heavy armor is "too unrealistic." Just ignore the giant spiritual beacon powered by souls, the evil space elves that need to torture to survive, the literal demons from hell! A main character leaping totally breaks immersion, but those three things don't.
Aztecs would be awesome as well. To earn favour they would need to sacrifice their own hit points in battle, similar to Norse I know but they should also be able to donate them at their temple and then heal. Big Feather Serpentine monsters would be the linchpin in their Myth unit armies :)
I cant find the part where you talk about buildings, so I'll reply here. I think building degeneration could work, but it could be a pretty big change. With it the players structures have a time limit on their existence, theoretically an attacking player could do a small amount of damage to start the process, then move on to another building and so on. Because the buildings degrade, all the attacking player has to do is keep villagers from getting to them for x time. Since villagers are relatively squishy this could be incredibly easy. Its an interesting idea, and Ive seen it done in StarCraft, where the Terran structures degrade once they're at a third or less health. Have you played the Settlers games? It sounds like something they'd have as they're very focused on city building and logistics.
@@mattmorehouse9685 Well I am one of those players that gets annoyed when their buildings have any hit points damaged, unless I know that they are self-repairing lol
@@mattmorehouse9685 I also wish they would bring back unlimited towers like in the Age of Empires 1, in order to rationalize it, it would cost extra gold that slowly ramps up by 10 gold per tower or something. And those REALLY thick walls from Troy, they should be available to build if you have a boatload of cash.
@@mattmorehouse9685 Naturally they should have Walls and Towers being the same thing, in fact I hope they take a page out of Shadiversities book about building Castles, which weren't singular buildings, they were and still are, a network of towers, walls, gates, keeps and the like.
@@Amadeus8484 Have you played Stronghold or Battle for Middle Earth 2? The former's all about castle building and logistics, while the latter had drag and drop walls you could upgrade with towers gates and trebuchets.
Insofar as you don't have to rebuild farms every 20 seconds during late game as in AoE2, I am fine. I hated that mechanic. All your ideas about the game are really good. There were some really neat mechanics they implemented in the DS version which are worth exploring, by the way....
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Hi thanks! I'm actually aware of the cueing mechanism, I just still don't like it. It is hard to fill the whole cue. At best I usually have wood to cue ten or fifteen. I also tend to get bogged microing troops up front a little too much and I always end up with idle farmers anyway. But thanks, still!
One thing I would like to see the return of is for all units (at least human ones) is for them to only use up one population. In addition, I thing both myth units and non Atlantean heroes should also, fall in line with the Infantry, cavalry, archer RPS dynamic.
Gimme AoM 2! Idc how it is packaged I just want it!
BOIT!!!! I watch all your videos, your commentary is top tier... I would die off with excitement if I heard folk were developing AoM 2
m.th-cam.com/video/eV7NdxMIaPc/w-d-xo.html
YESSSS😭😭😭😭😭😭❤️😭❤️❤️😭😭😭😭😭😭😭❤️
BoIt!
So basically you want Age of Empires 2 with an Age of Mythology skin and some mechanics around myth units?
Essentially the drive for conpetetive play is something that kills games like this for me sure it produces absurd lpngevity but ultimately all factions then play the same...
I like age of mythology because all civs play differently have a very distinct character. There is also this power spike mwcganic that is a one time use which i think is excellent.
He keeps refrencing competetive machanic. And he keeps refrencing age of empires and thstbit is a faster pqced. It is essentially a criticisn that it lacks typical balance like aoe 2 because its not competetive enough.
Aom always hit me as a laid back epic experience. Not a star craft speedy aoe 2 experience. I still hunger for a more massive scale and maybe unique concept but aom was really sonething. It died because the player base grew up. Bot because it wasnr competetove. The idea of e sports is cancer, and competetive play should be reserved for games made specifically for that purpose. Such as aoe 2. The besr competetove rts isbuktimately the one that has basically varying skins on the same civ. Or at least as little variety as possible.
I personally like the ones with the most variety with the most character and that is aom. I agree with some complaints, such as the lack of trash units, and some temple or faith gsthering issues but beyond that the game really is splendid. The pop cap... Ehhh thats a bit of an issue as well.
A disagree with most of the video.
1. For the god powers, I really like the spiky aspect they offer. Sure, it might make the importance of a particular fight a lot higher, but its one of the few mechanics that separates AoM from other games. If you make them on a cooldown, the mechanic becomes a lot less unique. Also, knowing to work around your opponent's god power and when to use your own can create a interesting game o chicken and allow players another avenue to outplay the opponent. Of course god powers have to be balanced accordingly, but I prefer them to be the way they are.
2. I'm not sure units having different modes of attack add anything really. If anything, the abilities associated with mythical creatures and heroes are a better and more simple version of that. Also, minor gods do allow players to make certain unique upgrades already, they only need to be made more meaningful and, alongside myth creatures, can make the player opt for a worst god power in exchange for permanent upgrades, its only a matter of balance.
3. I actually think that the Greek way of collection favor is the worst of all pantheons. It basically becomes the same as collecting food from a farm. It doesn't add depth to the game in any way shape or form, as its just a matter of "How many favor you need for your strategy? Oh, so you need that many people praying". It becomes a puzzle, and the problem with puzzles is that they can be solved. The egyptian, at the very least, forces you to make a bigger upfront investment that cannot be so easily transferred to other resources and also limits how much favor they can build. The norse one, forces, at least in theory, a more aggressive play style if you wanna get a lot of favor.
4. I've also had that complain from your AoE 2 videos, but I'll reiterate here. If your game starts at the 10 minute mark, you already have a flawed design. "Cheese" and aggressive strategy do have their place in RTS and completely nullifying them would take away a play style that many people enjoy. I know people will disagree with me, but when you have a game with no cheese and early rush, the initial build order becomes set in stone, becomes solved, and that's a problem. In a strategy game, you expect people to use strategic thinking from the very beginning, and not only after 2 and a half minutes have elapsed. Sure, when you look at AoM and AoE2, you can have variations on the initial build order, but those are usually minor adjustments that you'll only see the results after a while, Look instead at SC2. The possibility of rush and cheese makes the early game a lot more varied and important, as you always have to be in your toes. I'm not saying that AoE2 is bad by any means, but I'm just making the point of why having cheese can be a good thing.
5. I agree that AoM could use some trash units and I can see the argument for scouting resources being less informative as resources blend together. That said you could easily apply a system similar to Starcraft, where most of the information you gather are based around what buildings your opponent is making, even tho how many probes on gas is also a important info. That said, Age of Mythology is not Age of Empires 2. I repeat, AGE OF MYTHOLOGY IS NOT AGE OF EMPIRES 2. Just because gold is used exclusively from a military standpoint, that doesn't mean it has to be the same for Age of Mythology. You can have resources filling different purposes, without just copying AoE2.
6. To be fair, infinite farms aren't that different from self-replenishing farms, the only difference becomes that you need enough wood to sustain them, which doesn't necessarily add any depth anyway.
7. Titans are interesting and unique feature of the game. I agree that they weren't all that well made, but I believe the mechanic should be expanded instead of tossed aside. Making a Titan can be very dangerous, as you have to spend a lot of resources to advance to the titan age and a lot of villagers digging, and you opponent can choose to build a army and attack in the mean time. It only needs to be balanced. If anything, I would say the biggest problem is the player's ability to turtle, rather than the titan itself. If players can attack and destroy walls and towers more easily, investing in a titan becomes a lot riskier.
8. Funny that you call the starting towers a "patch" yet don't like cheese builds. If anything, its much harder to attack early on in AoE 2 compared to AoM. And again, early power spikes, cheese and rushes are not bad design just because you don't like them.
In summary, some of the suggestions are interesting, but most of them are trying to strip AoM from at makes it unique to begin with. Also, many points clearly shows your bias towards your preferred strategies. I really like late game battles, but even I can see the place cheese has in a RTS.
m.th-cam.com/video/eV7NdxMIaPc/w-d-xo.html
I disagree with pretty much everything you mentioned. All the things you dislike is what makes AOM so unique in the first place. You just want a reskinned AOEII with myth units, and that's not what AOM is. I would hate it if they make AOM2 the way you're describing.
As somebody who has held AOM as my favorite video game for a long time, I really really appreciate this kind of critical analysis of it, I really want a sequel to exist and the mechanics do have a lot of places that need improvement if any future games are to be competitively playable. I never loved playing ranked stuff online but I do know how crucial it is for the health of RTS games.
So yah thanks for this video!
m.th-cam.com/video/eV7NdxMIaPc/w-d-xo.html
The concept of age of mythology is fantastic. I really hope somebody revives it.
While I can definitely see a change to how the god powers work, or more consequential upgrades, I don't think the devs should go for a mini DoW style individual unit upgrades. The Age series has mostly focused on macro, and while AoM is more micro focused, it still is about managing your base, economy and counters. I could definitely see mutually exclusive upgrades, but I think they would apply globally. Having several weapons might work, but it seems that could really get out of control with special individual upgrades, which I don't think fit the still macro oriented nature of AoM. Actually, the game already has mutually exclusive upgrades in the minor gods, so they don't really need all that much more. As for the powers, I think a limit like the Atlanteans would be a good idea, where you can use most god powers multiple times, with a cooldown inbetween. This allows the devs to give the player "do overs" while still keeping the god powers limited in amount of uses. With unlimited uses, I think there would have to be a high favor cost, otherwise they wouldn't feel as impactful for balance.
Speaking of favor, I'd like to see it given some sort of continuous cost to getting. It wouldn't have to be resources, but I think having a multipurpose unit or building the player has to use to get favor would set it up as this precious resource, that needs to be husbanded. Or maybe it wouldn't work out. While the Norse method is difficult to see work, I think one of the standout parts of AoM is the highly different nature of the factions, and I would want the devs to continue that trend. Maybe the Norse could garrison their warriors in temples to generate favor.
Another thing I'd like to see is a rework of the special attacks, so that the player can choose when they go off. Since they go off the moment the myth unit attacks with a full bar, they feel really finicky and like a lot of the time you'd waste something like the medusa's petrify because the bar would refill and there'd be nothing but basic infantry around. I wouldn't want them to be a powerful as StarCraft 2's and I think an energy bar would be a bit much, but the ability to chose when the special attack goes off would really help players use them tactically, instead of wasting them.
I can see how the Egyptians not using much wood would be a problem, but I think switching what they use wood and gold for would keep them gathering both, while making them feel unique.
Honestly, considering Relic's success minimizing base building, getting rid of drop off points could be quite praised. That and I think you are presenting a false dichotomy, that the factions have to have drop off points or else no base building. For one the slow movement of citizens and the fact that they'll be all over the map encourages player to defend their gatherers. I could see a different way to tie the citizens down, such as making them gather slowly, but the player can create a structure that speeds it up. I suppose part of it is that I've heard several commentators praise tactical rts games so much it sounds odd to hear someone say they don't like it. Not saying that you are wrong, hell, I think Dawn of War 2 is somewhat overrated, but I think there are ways to tie the Atlanteans down while making them different from the other factions. I think that there is inherent value in making factions asymmetrical, and, while it has to be weighed against balance, I'd argue that too many commentators discount it as entirely secondary.
@Bao Thuy Ooo, it's not proper. And what does that mean, beyond your opinion that it's icky, and bad... because?
@Bao Thuy Okay, so getting rid of impermanent FoW is more "proper". So is one unit selection, no shift key and no unit abilities. Any more advancements we should throw out? How about the shift key?
I appreciate you trying to think of a version more fun for you, but I think it sounds less interesting and less leading towards and evocative of the strategies (ah yes, summoning titans, I know) and economics of the historical cultures than the original.
I'd like to make it clear that this is intended as more of a querulous (and at times self promoting in the context in which I try to offer alternatives) than aggressive tone (also I don't know your opinion on later AoE2 expansions): Spanish blacksmiths and the plumed archer upgrade are cases where knowing whether or not one's opponent is mining gold does not provide insight as to (certain) upgrades. There are also cases where the lack of collection of gold may not indicate that an opponent is creating a unit to counter one's own, as with early defensive spearmen against expected scouts not necessarily benefitting enough from technologies to justify the added cost, due to the limited improvement to their already powerful counter in this area (my apologies if I'm misrepresenting your point or being unclear myself). The market's exchange function also lessens the argument for creating military expectations from a glance at economic activity. In the later expansions of AoE2 -which I have heard many decry as less balanced (but which is of less concern to me than how interesting they are in gameplay and historical and cultural reference) - Malay Thassalocracy allows pure wood cost defensive buildings in the form of harbours. If one were to take some earlier version of AoE2 as the ideal of RTS design, then I'd again say I like camels being something that aren't made practically worthless by what might have been a harmless "ships of the desert" reference. I don't think the standardisation (or increased "intuitiveness" as a game system for competitive play purposes) is worth what it sacrifices. Changing how civilisations play to guide one towards their historical strengths or in reference to cultural nuances seems to have been most of what guided civilisation bonuses and (perhaps a bit less so, as with the Chinese) team bonuses in Age of Empires 2. The different favour gathering and the various references to how differently Egypt worked (with the farming rate and upgrades, as well as switched costs, although whether the exact choices are the most appropriate, while remaining elegantly simple, is not something I will make claims on) are wonderful pieces of flavour. Serious question: do you think it is more flavourful for "trash" human units to exist without actual justification (think the Malay's Forced Levy)? Cutting off trade routes and mines to prevent the hiring or paying of retainers to troops is very much a military strategy and a wonderful one to see replicated, encouraging *more strategic thinking*. I'm not advocating for abandoning common RTS mechanics entirely for some sort of simulation (I prefer AoM to Total War titles despite ostensibly far closer resemblance to historical combat by several metrics [ignoring the obvious one of myth units] while remaining an RTS) , but rejecting fun flavour for blandness is not something I'll endorse.
Importing AoE3's melee weapons for ranged troops in melee range seems to be a solution to the silliness that is archers firing in melee(although I'm not opposed to something like hoplites abandoning sarissas for swords to expedite an advance at the cost of higher losses rather than winning through attrition and being less able to quickly respond to other threats or advance). As I understand it, AoM's town center slots were a compromise on fertile land slots for farms, which seems on the face of it similar to the production buildings (such as farms) of BfME2 needing vast expanses (when building begins) to produce most efficiently (which I've just realised might be a commentary on the destruction (of the farms and mallorn trees) of industry that Tolkien was so interested in as well as a barrier to turtling and booming, although most other production buildings don't bear this out well at all). I'd have to do research as to how each of the AoM civilisations regarded proximity of temples and holy sites. When this religious approach is taken from might have to be settled on. (If one were to do it all over but were restricted to the same units and general game format) Possibly the time of Alexander for the Greeks would be most appropriate, considering the confluence of hypaspists, peltasts and hetairoi (although then I have to also check if combining Greeks and Macedonians is appropriate, the (thousand) ship(s) of the Akhaians long since having sailed with the campaign when the Egyptian spearmen's attire resembles reconstructions of the armaments found at the site of Troy more closely than that of the in-game Greeks, although this is due to a choice for recognisability of the hoplon and so on that I respect). One thing I will criticise Age of Mythology for is the javelin (peltast and turma) as a counter to archers which it inherited from Age of Empires 2. Maybe tweaking speed and some sort of set up period that archers have (representing the commonly depicted idea of setting one's arrows in the ground before use for ease of reach, presumably to improve fire rate) which javelin throwers did not, representing this role as skirmishing against foot troops and outrunning them rather than setting up in static, strategic emplacements as longer ranged archers might be suited for. This seems more in line with how the in game descriptions of AoM and AoE2 of javelin throwers describe their role.
I appreciate that some of your ideas were intended to work towards systems Relic (Entertainment?) has used before, but (unless I've missed something), the relic system in Age of Mythology seems a lot more appropriate and tweaking from there rather than a mechanic made for a different setting would seem to be a good idea to me.
You do also get a lot of free unit and building stat boosts by aging up in AoE2. For example: Stone walls double in health when one levels up, Sicilian serjeants get a bonus that I forget the nature of and non-defensive buildings have their armour and hp increased substantially. I seem to recall certain upgrades from two ages ago being automatically acquired, but this was on unupdated AoK and AoC disc versions and possibly a scenario editor quirk even there (in the castle age, militia would become men at arms despite the upgrade never being researched and were again transformed into long swordsmen upon reaching the imperial age, for example).
There isn't going to be an AoM 2 until some people take some radical action. But I have some really good ideas for it -- Aztecs, Hindus etc. and I could go into greater detail.
Harrison Hatton
improved China
Ooo aztecs would be verrrryy cool.
@@theseafaringsaxophone440 and here you go: th-cam.com/video/eV7NdxMIaPc/w-d-xo.html
Great analysis! I agree with almost everything you said. However, there's two points I differ on -
1) I don't think it's a good idea to simply replace the town centers on strategic points mechanic (which you disagreed with, as do I) with a holy land (to build temples) at strategic points mechanic. That said, I do agree with your other suggestions for temples or other favor generation structures needing to be spread out (by either an exclusion zone or sharply reduced effectiveness), so long as we get to decide how we do that spread. Also support the idea that we should have to sacrifice something to get that favor (and have more uses for it as with many of the suggestions you made in the vid) - the Greek way of getting it seems most suitable for this so perhaps that can just be made the universal mechanism.
2) I have to admit I strongly disagree with removing the auto-build button on production buildings. Frankly, that's a feature I think a lot more RTS's should have, not less. The reason being that not having that button may reward mechanical mastery (high APM), but it does so with a frankly uninteresting/boring repetitive task. If you want more reward for rapid fire play, do it by giving more units special abilities or toggles, less perfect aim (to reward microing to dodge projectiles), more resources to manage or more need to rebalance or adjust your economy (but not with simply manually reseeding farms - the reseed farm queue in AoE 2 strikes a good balance between infinite farms and manual reseeding everytime) by switching your workers around, etc. I'm okay with auto-build not adapting to your economic situation, tho - basically, it keeps producing as long as you have the resources to support that production, stops if you don't and doesn't automatically toggle on when you do again. That rewards knowing how much production your economy can support, and penalises exceeding that capacity, without bogging you own constantly refreshing production of the same units (and incidentally, I support it being able to infinite produce a mix of units in sequence as well, as seen in games like Supreme Commander, a game which is also still played to this day).
Anyway, thanks for the critique and have a great day! :)
Honestly, i think giving each faction a spin on how they produce favor is something that really helps characterise them. While I would like to see more of a proportional component, I think defaulting to the Greek model would downgrade a major plus of the game; unique factions. The Egyptians play differently from the Greeks, who play differently from the Norse and so on. I think all too often asymmetry is regarded as a secondary feature, when it could lead to great gameplay.
I disagree with point 2. I think manual queue adds a lot to the game at both lower and higher levels at play. At lower levels of play, requiring more attention to be spent on macro with manual queue allows macro-oriented players to succeed, even when their unit control/micro may be lacking, as players of the same skill level who put more attention into controlling their units would likely be putting less attention into their macro. If you removed manual queue, players would be almost forced to spend more attention on controlling their units, restricting the agency given to lower-level players when choosing what to improve upon and what to focus on. At higher levels of play, having mechanical difficulty adds to the excitement of matches, and increases the skill ceiling of the game. Knowing that a player has to play super fast and watch so many things at once can make a game more fun to watch, and it means that even some of the highest level players will still make many mistakes. Additionally, high-level players would likely feel more control over their production and resources with manual-queue rather than auto-queue, given that they could use manual-queue quite effectively, and missing production cycles (for example, cutting workers) would often be an intended decision for such players.
I really like this video and your channel in general. This made me think that what business decisions get made for and what team designs AoM2 is kind of random. I feel there is a 70% chance it will be a shitty nostalgia cash grab like W3 Reforged and 30% chance it will be improved. With only 10% chance it will be improved as much as your suggestions. And the only reason I gave percentages this high to my speculation is due to the competence of the AoE2:DE.
This made me wonder if there would be a way for you to make a strategy game (or literally your version of AoM2). And one way to get development cost down a lot is to modify an existing team. Even lower if joining an existing team.
I feel one of the advantages of open-source software is how it democratizes software creation by lowering the barriers. It also fosters the competition of ideas and reduces competition in resources. This is due to copyleft (the code is "locked to remain open") enabling anyone to reuse and build on top of anyone else's work. You see something similar (albeit in a legally muddy way) with custom map creation (e.g. W3).
This brings me to my conclusion. Have you heard of 0 A.D. ? It is an open-source game in the vein of AoE, and I think with some guidance regarding the strategy and metagame aspects it could be an amazing tool to spur diversity of ideas in RTS-s. Alternatively, you could make your own clone of that to implement your ideas for AoM2. Finding a small part-time team of like-minded people to buy into your vision isn't impossible if you can't code yourself. I think art (actual mythology 3D models and 2D art) is secondary to implementing a game and can be gotten quite easily when there is a solid proof of concept. Even I would join in to crowd-fund your art when the game is mostly implemented. For a lower-effort option, the game also supports mods. An interesting recent innovation is an official community balance mod that aims to let the community get easier access to balancing the official game. That too might benefit greatly from your RTS expertise.
What do you think? And if nothing else, I would be really curious of your thoughts on 0 A.D.
Please do a video on stronghold legends
I know im late for the party, but if I could ask for one thing in an Age Of Mythology 2, it would be more Civilizations and Gods/Goddesses. I’d love to see what Celtic, Japanese, Hindu, Native American, etc. gods/goddesses existed and what creatures could be used.
th-cam.com/video/eV7NdxMIaPc/w-d-xo.html
@@hhattonaom9729 there we go. That’s a starter
@@scottmcconnell9211
I agree. Really well said!
Trigger warning at 12:15! He says it! XD
Bad suggestions, do no listen Microsoft!!!!
There is a mod called Expanded Mod which fixes a good chunk of the problems you stated like no trash units. give it a look you won't regret it
Does AoM work on Win 10 because looks like my disc doesnt. . .
Dunno about disk, but the one available via Steam does.
What new civilizations should they add? I have always wanted to see Japan.
I think it would be cool as fuck if the choices you take will severaly affect your gameplay for example if you advance an age and you pick Ares you would not only have cyclops as troops but also cyclops villagers (smiths specially) and your troops will have specially efficient weapons and armours that will turn them into tanks things like that
In Aom you will pick a civilization, a major god and 4 minor gods that would result in a ton of diferent ways of gameplay that would be wondeefull to explore
I think it would also be cool if you could use monks to turn enemy units to your cause but the enemy will not be aware of it by the game lets say you turn a lor of villagers to your cause and a part of the resources the other player send them to gather goes for you or when they build something it will appear with 500/750 hit points
Those details are things I would love to see
Just add fuck ton of Mythologies lol
-Finnic
-Baltic
-Slavic
-Celtic
-Gaelic
-Pacific
-Aztecs
-Africans
-Japanese
-Native Americans
-Hindu
-Christian
-Cthulu
-Siberian shamnism
-Aboriginals
And more!
I was wondering what do you think about the pop in Aom, the idea of some units costing more pop then others, is that somthing that should be changed or is it fine for the gameplay of aom?
Dude... we cant be sure there will even be an AoE4... let alone an AoM or RoN sequel...
Was this made before the Relic announcement of AoE4?
Come to think of it, the insane fan backlash to Relic could imperil the series. Ive seen some of the "problems" DoW3 supposedly has and a lot of them are already in the series. Circular cover? DoW had craters that provided cover. No retreat? DoW also didnt have that. The units are too colorful? A) the campaign eldar were painted bloody navy blue and sunshine yellow in the second game. B) they were green and white in the first. C) they included a goddamn army painter- in both games! Its almost like a series based on a miniature painting game has tons of was to customize your forces look. Who knew?
There are some even dumber ones. Gabe jumping in heavy armor is "too unrealistic." Just ignore the giant spiritual beacon powered by souls, the evil space elves that need to torture to survive, the literal demons from hell! A main character leaping totally breaks immersion, but those three things don't.
AoE4 coming up this year :)
Dude can you make tutorial how to upgrade armor of units in editor like from basic hoplite to champion or heavy
Aztecs would be awesome as well. To earn favour they would need to sacrifice their own hit points in battle, similar to Norse I know but they should also be able to donate them at their temple and then heal. Big Feather Serpentine monsters would be the linchpin in their Myth unit armies :)
I cant find the part where you talk about buildings, so I'll reply here. I think building degeneration could work, but it could be a pretty big change. With it the players structures have a time limit on their existence, theoretically an attacking player could do a small amount of damage to start the process, then move on to another building and so on. Because the buildings degrade, all the attacking player has to do is keep villagers from getting to them for x time. Since villagers are relatively squishy this could be incredibly easy.
Its an interesting idea, and Ive seen it done in StarCraft, where the Terran structures degrade once they're at a third or less health. Have you played the Settlers games? It sounds like something they'd have as they're very focused on city building and logistics.
@@mattmorehouse9685 Well I am one of those players that gets annoyed when their buildings have any hit points damaged, unless I know that they are self-repairing lol
@@mattmorehouse9685 I also wish they would bring back unlimited towers like in the Age of Empires 1, in order to rationalize it, it would cost extra gold that slowly ramps up by 10 gold per tower or something.
And those REALLY thick walls from Troy, they should be available to build if you have a boatload of cash.
@@mattmorehouse9685 Naturally they should have Walls and Towers being the same thing, in fact I hope they take a page out of Shadiversities book about building Castles, which weren't singular buildings, they were and still are, a network of towers, walls, gates, keeps and the like.
@@Amadeus8484
Have you played Stronghold or Battle for Middle Earth 2? The former's all about castle building and logistics, while the latter had drag and drop walls you could upgrade with towers gates and trebuchets.
Insofar as you don't have to rebuild farms every 20 seconds during late game as in AoE2, I am fine. I hated that mechanic. All your ideas about the game are really good. There were some really neat mechanics they implemented in the DS version which are worth exploring, by the way....
Use reseed farm button at the Mill. You can queue up like 30 or more farms for reseeding with that, assuming you have the wood.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Hi thanks! I'm actually aware of the cueing mechanism, I just still don't like it. It is hard to fill the whole cue. At best I usually have wood to cue ten or fifteen. I also tend to get bogged microing troops up front a little too much and I always end up with idle farmers anyway. But thanks, still!
It has been 18 years though... There will never be AOM2 sadly :(
One thing I would like to see the return of is for all units (at least human ones) is for them to only use up one population.
In addition, I thing both myth units and non Atlantean heroes should also, fall in line with the Infantry, cavalry, archer RPS dynamic.
AOM so DLC no?
what the hell is this dislike