You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.16 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Whats wrong with an AOK2?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Whats wrong with an AOK2?
Yokel
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 06:45 PM EDT (US)         
Okay this ticks me off, ENsemble studios goes and creates an entirely new game with useless things like 3-D for no reason. 3-D is next to useless for a strategy game, it only slows it down.

AOK was a really great game my only problem with it was that it ignored the Slavic civs, and it didn't have nough civ specific units.

WHat would have been good was a revised AOK/TC with all the same civs but more unique units.

Of course the western EUropean civs would share a lot of the same stuff but you wouldn't have to deal with Chinese Knights or celtic horse archers, come on some of the stuff was ridiculous.

Here are the CIvs which should've been added:

1. Mali
2. Russia
3. Poland
4. Vietnam
5. Cambodia

Of course they add in civs like the Huns which really belong in AOE, and civs like Spain which basically didn't exist until the very late part of the middle ages. Not saying htye shouldn't be there its just well the X-PAc should've included more civs.

Oh yeah one more thing, we siege towers.

Unit changes:

Only Koreans, Mongols, Turks, Byzantines, Sarecans, and other civs which actually used cav archers get them.

Also only Franks, Britons, Celts, Teutons, Goths, and spanish get knights.

Mongols and Chinese get heavy cavalry, but not knights.

AuthorReplies:
Enrique Orduno
Banned
posted 17 April 2001 06:51 PM EDT (US)     1 / 16       
What's your point and what's Aok2 ?

The next game is 3d because.... well.... because. Making artwork is easier with 3d since u don't need to draw all the frames for each units(believe me when I tell u that drawing a unit for aok is a pain in the @$$(260 frames to edit for 1 unit)). 3D allows you to zoom/rotate/have cooler elevation system...

Making a second game like Aok is useless.

And AoM is supposed to have 3 unique civs with their own graphics and their own sets.

Yokel
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 06:53 PM EDT (US)     2 / 16       
Okay, okay I see. Its just that well frankly I still have an appetite for midevil era games.
Enrique Orduno
Banned
posted 17 April 2001 06:55 PM EDT (US)     3 / 16       
Then, buy W3
Yokel
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 06:57 PM EDT (US)     4 / 16       
Whats W3?
Pascal
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 06:58 PM EDT (US)     5 / 16       
they probably couldn't think of anything that would make the game spectacularly different from aok

[ Seeing the Marvels of the Universe for less than thirty Altairian dollars a day ]
Yokel
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 07:00 PM EDT (US)     6 / 16       
WHy not have officers like in war zone?
Juggernaught_NK
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 07:00 PM EDT (US)     7 / 16       
3D allows many more units on the screen at one time, at least thats what Sandy said.
Gorion
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 07:03 PM EDT (US)     8 / 16       
the Spanish civ didn't start in 1479. Spain as a country did
Yokel
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 07:11 PM EDT (US)     9 / 16       
Heres a list of how AOK2 could be radically better:

1. Champions cannot be produced but appear randomly and are very good. Rename the highest upgrade ELite 2-handed swordsmen. ALso only Euro civs get that series, other civs get other infantry.

2. Knights appear only in western civs, other civs get the heavy cavalry that there culture actually possesed.

3. Siege towers, and ladders.

4. Add new civs, like I said:

Russia(same architecture as Huns)
Mali(mideteranian architecture, slightly varied)
Poland(same as russia)
Khmer
Vietnam
Swiss

Basically new civs, more historical accuracy, siege towers, really good units which appear randomly(champions), also why can't the Koreans have that special horse archer guy like they did in real life?

Alexander
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 07:20 PM EDT (US)     10 / 16       
If AoM is like EE then it will rock. You can view the game like aok and then you can zoom in on battles. It rocks. I'm pretty sure ES will make it better too.
Meat_Wagon_
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 07:21 PM EDT (US)     11 / 16       
so your telling them to re-make Age2?

Quoted from Yokel:
They should add Pokemon into Aok!

First off, shut up because you don't know crap, and second, why do you want to "make champions randomly"? And if they did more UU's then, they would have to do 260 frames for EACH UNIT, put in stats, upgrades, bonus's, and it would be all confusing and the whole game would tun to CRAP. 18 civs aren't enough? THEN PLAY ANOTHER GAME!!!

phew! that feels better . . .


A proud member of Woad Creations!
Currently working on: BattleBots 6.0 and Hassen The Assassin.
_MysticMage_
Banned
posted 17 April 2001 07:25 PM EDT (US)     12 / 16       
Aom will not be even close to ee it's complitly different. AOm will eb with magic and stuff.
Thunder
VIP BonusXP
posted 17 April 2001 09:02 PM EDT (US)     13 / 16       
Some reasons to go 3D posted at Evil Avatar by Herb Marselas:

"> So why bother going 3D then?

There are many reasons.

One reason is that players want more units, more animations, smoother animations, etc.

In AoK, we were really topping out with the multi-hundred MB of sprite facets we were shipping.

Going to 3D allows us to have more units, more animations, and smoother animations, in the same or less space.

There's a lot more cool stuff, but we'll save that for later

- CaptainInsano@ES"

In otherwords, you don't have to have several animations from different angles for each unit in a 3D game...it's just one model. This leaves room/time for more units/buildings and other kewl features.

[This message has been edited by Thunder (edited 04-17-2001 @ 09:05 PM).]

The Hyper Duck
The Roast Duck
posted 17 April 2001 09:06 PM EDT (US)     14 / 16       
Siege towers would be absolutely useless.

Would they attack the wall? If so, they'd just be rams.

If they were used to actually transports units over the walls, the defender could just as easily build a wall behind the first one, effectively making siege towers a waste

[This message has been edited by The Hyper Duck (edited 04-17-2001 @ 09:06 PM).]

Pascal
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 09:23 PM EDT (US)     15 / 16       
i liked one guy's idea of a seige tower, mentioned before TC.

because the realistic use of a seige tower in aok (getting units into castles and the like) doesn't really apply, seige towers could serve to ungarrison buildings. thus, the units are brought in contact to fight each other, which was the purpose of the seige tower


[ Seeing the Marvels of the Universe for less than thirty Altairian dollars a day ]
Yokel
Mortal
posted 17 April 2001 10:33 PM EDT (US)     16 / 16       
Okay, Okay I've been convinced AOM is a cool idea, just don't abandon us fans of the middle ages!

As for siege towers, they should be able to climb onto a wall and over any walls directly behind it!

You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames