Even if I don't care and haven't played AoE2 at all for years mainly it still isn't good to do that.
AGE OF EMPIRES 2 VS 3 MOD
There shouldn't be just some visual/audio mod like DE and just re-selling it as a new game that is incompatible with all the other ones. I feel the devs messed up re-releasing this so many times and also dividing it. They should have just added DE as a DLC for HD, instead of community splitting where now 2/3 of the players are on DE and 1/3 of them on HD. There were many old mods/things that I'm sure more people liked and were already ported to HD. Even after all this time 'strategy' is still loosely established, many follow basic guides on it and think it's the best way, but the specialized civs many regard as worse can win quite substantially, while most players seem to want to sit back and boom with colonial civs before fighting all the time (taking out literally all advantage, upgrades, counters, and other variety)ĪoE2 is 'ok' but I also dislike DE for purely being a mod. being new I got to like 15-1 type of streaks because the players are easy to slap but the ranking is broken and I'm not rly setting a goal to get to top.
So thus it's easy to pick a native civ or simply devise a rush and win even not being optimal. A lot of players there are a lot less skilled than the top players in AoM however and they think many well-rounded defensive civs are the 'meta', building walls, booming, as well as 'building a forward base' is like their idea of a top play. It's easily 'a game', I like it as it's more fast paced than AoE2. Understanding and getting skilled in AoM was funnest I think out of the other games which I regard as casual.ĪoE3 I recently tried with AoE3DE for the first time.
I really liked AoM the best even though I now rarely play either of them. That function slightly differently, shortens the game times substantially, yet retaining most of the original aspects of RTS and countering from AoE2 and main RTS. It takes double time even to do like a faster game on AoE2.ĪoM is probably the 'best' medium of the two as it had balances, totally different civs Some old games take way too long to determine a winner and AoE2 has been largely the same balance forever (other than 'civs' that change 1 or 2 things and add a late-game unique unit). But I recently played AoE3 and with native civs I've been pretty good, it isn't hard to make a build order and understand it within a short time, sort of like an easier one in all regards.įor me I dislike AoE2 most now simply because of the 'long' and unthoughtful time to conduct simple actions. I had 2000 ELO on both AoE2 and AoM at one point, AoE3 is the one I never played and I recently played it (it's simpler and a bit more sped up than the other ones w/ shipments, but equally not that hard).
AGE OF EMPIRES 2 VS 3 UPGRADE
The combat though is a bit chore in my opinion, it always evolves in endlessly repeating clashes, maybe because of the rock-paper-scissors mechanics.ĪOE 3 is a biggest departure in terms of the game flow in my opinion, maps feel much more confined, with less stress on exploration, expansion and even economy management, but it is still enough to entertain, the combat feels more like in AOE 2 and the overhauled upgrade system seems cool, it adds some variety without much imbalance and the late game is pretty hillarious.
AGE OF EMPIRES 2 VS 3 HOW TO
Also the civs feel more specialized than in AOE 2, thus, the decision of how to play is partially based on which civ you play. Which Age of Empires game, do you think, is the best?ĪOE 2 has plenty of strategical options, exploration and expansion, lots o army combinations for every civ, but they are almost identical, the skill ceiling is very high and the first half of every game is a bit slow.ĪOM is almost like AOE 2 but the maps feel a bit smaller and the expansion is more driven by the map design.